Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: File Size

The PDF Guide: File Size And Creation Time Tested
By

Default Quality

The 115-page roadmap document can be squeezed into a 3.5 MB file using Adobe Acrobat 9. PowerPoint 2007’s PDF Export, FreePDF 4.02, and the PDF Creator 1.0.1 create files at around 7 MB, and Foxit Phantom 2.0 returned something that actually has a file size larger than the source file.

Our more complex 24-page presentation is smallest when using PowerPoint PDF Export or Adobe Acrobat 9, resulting in 1.5 MB and 2.3 MB files, respectively. FreePDF and PDF Creator take almost 9 MB, and Foxit Phantom 2.0 consumes more than 25 MB on your hard drive at default quality settings.

High Quality

Clearly, file size at high quality is much smaller on Adobe Acrobat 9’s output than on the other solutions. The roadmap document we used has 115 pages and requires 5.3 MB capacity when created by Acrobat, more than 7 MB on PDFCreator 1.0.1 or FreePDF 4.02, but significantly more through MS PowerPoint 2010’s PDF export feature or Foxit Phantom 2.0.

In high-quality mode, our complex 24-page presentation still is at around 4 MB with Acrobat 9 and PowerPoint PDF Export. Foxit Phantom 2.0 has the audacity to require almost 40 MB. That’s way too much if you want to email this presentation.

Display all 41 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 24 Hide
    mitch074 , August 25, 2010 6:35 AM
    It's strange that OO.o is only mentioned in passing, considering that:
    - it includes a sh*tload of settings: resample images, adhere to PDF/A standard, image compression quality...
    - it allows you to REALLY create a PDF: collapsible menus, page previews, FORMS, encryption and password protection for opening, modifying, printing...
    - using Sun/Oracle's own extension, it can also import a PDF for edition. It's now an extension because it is updated more often than OO.o itself.

    Add OO.o to the test, please - at least it supports PDF natively, while MS Office requires an add-on.
  • 14 Hide
    sharpless78 , August 25, 2010 7:38 AM
    I agree with mitch074, why no OOo?
  • 10 Hide
    Tomtompiper , August 25, 2010 8:22 AM
    I have used OO.o for years to edit and create PDF's so why is it not tested? This is like testing Browsers and omitting Firefox.
Other Comments
  • 24 Hide
    mitch074 , August 25, 2010 6:35 AM
    It's strange that OO.o is only mentioned in passing, considering that:
    - it includes a sh*tload of settings: resample images, adhere to PDF/A standard, image compression quality...
    - it allows you to REALLY create a PDF: collapsible menus, page previews, FORMS, encryption and password protection for opening, modifying, printing...
    - using Sun/Oracle's own extension, it can also import a PDF for edition. It's now an extension because it is updated more often than OO.o itself.

    Add OO.o to the test, please - at least it supports PDF natively, while MS Office requires an add-on.
  • 14 Hide
    sharpless78 , August 25, 2010 7:38 AM
    I agree with mitch074, why no OOo?
  • 10 Hide
    Tomtompiper , August 25, 2010 8:22 AM
    I have used OO.o for years to edit and create PDF's so why is it not tested? This is like testing Browsers and omitting Firefox.
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , August 25, 2010 8:25 AM
    How about a comparison of pdf readers? There's quite a few of them
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 25, 2010 9:38 AM
    I use CutePDF and PDFill. Both are free and work great to produce pdf files.
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , August 25, 2010 9:50 AM
    Why no NitroPDF professional not free but at $99 cheaper than Adobe and significantly better than Foxit.
  • 5 Hide
    Tomtompiper , August 25, 2010 10:00 AM
    It seems that this article missed the mark when it comes to inclusiveness. My suggestion is a comprehensive rewrite and while you are at it try testing the cross platform solutions on a speed optimized Linux Distro like PCLinuxOS to see if there is a difference to Win 7.
  • 0 Hide
    DSpider , August 25, 2010 11:37 AM
    True. It's Tom's Hardware not software. Let other sites deal with such trivial stuff.

    Too bad you didn't consider OpenOffice and NitroPDF. Both vey good alernatives.

    Also there's a less known format called DjVu that's even better than PDF: http://djvu.org
  • 1 Hide
    howardp6 , August 25, 2010 12:19 PM
    In creating PDF files, size is very important, since email systems limit the size of incoming e-mails.
  • 0 Hide
    randomizer , August 25, 2010 12:54 PM
    Quote:
    How about a comparison of pdf readers? There's quite a few of them

    They all do the exact same thing too.
  • 4 Hide
    awaken688 , August 25, 2010 12:58 PM
    Why only Powerpoint? No word documents? The most common PDF I see is a Word file turned to PDF. Add OpenOffice as well. While I like the idea, this was pretty weak for an article. This is like a Browser test that leaves out Chrome and Opera and then only tests static HTML. You just need more data to be a test that has value.
  • 0 Hide
    marcusmurphy , August 25, 2010 2:06 PM
    PDF-XChange Pro would be the top on my list... followed by NitroPDF then Nuance PDF Converter Pro. None of these are tested???
  • -1 Hide
    snotling , August 25, 2010 2:36 PM
    marcusmurphyPDF-XChange Pro would be the top on my list... followed by NitroPDF then Nuance PDF Converter Pro. None of these are tested???

    There are a lot of 3rd tier PDF makers using open source code, testing all of them would be quite redundant, at some point a line must be drawn on how many have to be included in a comparative test.

    still OOO should have been part of it IMO but the original file would have been tempered by not using PPT natively.
  • 1 Hide
    marcusmurphy , August 25, 2010 2:51 PM
    snotlingThere are a lot of 3rd tier PDF makers using open source code, testing all of them would be quite redundant, at some point a line must be drawn on how many have to be included in a comparative test. still OOO should have been part of it IMO but the original file would have been tempered by not using PPT natively.


    Sorry but none of those are open source and I just listed the top 3 (aside from FoxIt) alternative Adobe PDF software available. Before this review I had never heard of FreePDF or PDFCreator. Oh and the latter of the 3 also converts PDFs back to any office document type you want. So no it really wouldn't be that redundant...
  • 4 Hide
    70camaross396 , August 25, 2010 3:40 PM
    I would have liked to have seen a couple more software packages tested. in particular OO.O and PDFxchange and PDFCreator
  • 2 Hide
    hixbot , August 25, 2010 3:45 PM
    Stick to hardware. Software reviews aren't this site's strong suit. You need to include more open source tools.

    The preamble about PDF is decent. But there are so many amazing PDF tools out there, and you pretty much only introduced two.
  • -9 Hide
    truerock , August 25, 2010 4:05 PM
    I can't think of any reason I would ever want to create a PDF file. The only time I run into that useless document format is when I need to sign a document from a lawyer, stock broker, real estate agent or the government. Which brings up the other most useless piece of crap technology: fax.

    I use PDF Creator to sign PDF documents. I use the Microsoft Windows fax utility to fax it back to whatever retard wants a signed fax so they can do something.

    If the US wanted to improve the efficiency of this country significantly, they would outlaw PDF and Fax.
  • 0 Hide
    Supertrek32 , August 25, 2010 4:09 PM
    bonesnopHow about a comparison of pdf readers? There's quite a few of them

    I'd definitely like to see this as well. I avoid Adobe Reader like the plague because of all the security issues I hear about it. Currently using FoxIt, but it'd be interesting to see what reader has the best performance.
  • -4 Hide
    truerock , August 25, 2010 4:19 PM
    Oh - by the way, like anybody cares...
    My wife and I spent 2 hours signing a 2 inch thick stack of documents to close the last property I financed.

    Another one...
    My son is starting a small business. A big part of his life is now stamping PDFs with his (or my) signature and faxing them back to someone. What a giant waste of time.
  • 7 Hide
    Killua , August 25, 2010 5:00 PM
    It seems clear to me that Toms Hardware doesn't have complicated use of PDF in their workplace. I'm only an intern at my company and I have to deal with 22" x 34" sized engineering drawings and these tests don't even come close to what I require at my work. I also find it strange that the first page talks about PDF being cross-platform yet everything is done in Windows.

    This article is very weak compared to their hardware articles.
Display more comments