Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Professional Applications

Tom's CPU Architecture Shootout: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz
By

Professional graphics rendering performance is largely dependent on the number of available cores, which means that results from one core are more synthetic than anything, given today's predominantly multi-core landscape. If we were running this test with all cores enabled, we'd naturally see something completely different.

Once again, Intel delivers better performance per clock from its most modern products. Like we said, though, putting a six-core AMD chip against a quad- or dual-core Intel processor at the same price point will drastically change the performance picture. Our exploration here is experimental by nature; we want to test per-clock performance of just one core.

Photoshop is one of the few applications where Intel's x86 architectural efforts don't just end up in a faster product than AMD’s cores; they're substantially faster. It’s not hard to imagine what happens if you scale the performance difference across additional processor cores. At the same time, at any given price point, it's also easier to get more of AMD's cores than Intel's.

Differences are similarly notable in Adobe’s Premiere. The results clearly demonstrate that you shouldn’t use the early Athlon 64 X2 processors or especially Intel’s NetBurst-based products if you can help it.

AMD’s cores look much better in Blender, which is also an image rendering application. The program seems to benefit a lot from the Sandy Bridge architecture.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 133 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 31 Hide
    Darkerson , July 26, 2011 5:43 AM
    This was a pretty nifty article. Hope you guys revisit it after Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge drop. Thanks!
  • 22 Hide
    jcesmi , July 26, 2011 8:05 AM
    Where are those bots i buy all my cloths from?
  • 21 Hide
    fstrthnu , July 26, 2011 5:51 AM
    Thing is, Intel will already have their updated Sandy Bridge processors by the time Bulldozer comes out - which will probably maintain the gap. AMD would need a MASSIVE effort to catch up or even pass Intel at this point. Bulldozer's going to have to try really hard to win back the high-end enthusiast market. Intel clearly has had much better direction from Intel Core up to now.
Other Comments
  • 31 Hide
    Darkerson , July 26, 2011 5:43 AM
    This was a pretty nifty article. Hope you guys revisit it after Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge drop. Thanks!
  • 2 Hide
    fstrthnu , July 26, 2011 5:45 AM
    Wow, this has got to be one of your biggest comparos EVER. Didn't finish reading it yet, but it looks like this one will be quite a doozy
  • 4 Hide
    wintermint , July 26, 2011 5:47 AM
    Well AMD hasn't released a new architecture in a long time.. what you expect?
  • 21 Hide
    fstrthnu , July 26, 2011 5:51 AM
    Thing is, Intel will already have their updated Sandy Bridge processors by the time Bulldozer comes out - which will probably maintain the gap. AMD would need a MASSIVE effort to catch up or even pass Intel at this point. Bulldozer's going to have to try really hard to win back the high-end enthusiast market. Intel clearly has had much better direction from Intel Core up to now.
  • 11 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , July 26, 2011 5:55 AM
    Every single comment posted before Darkerson (there were quite a few) seem to have mysteriously vanished... strange.
  • 8 Hide
    cangelini , July 26, 2011 6:12 AM
    dragonsqrrlEvery single comment posted before Darkerson (there were quite a few) seem to have mysteriously vanished... strange.


    How many more were there? That's not something I've seen happen before.

    Best,
    Chris
  • 5 Hide
    Lewis57 , July 26, 2011 6:14 AM
    One of the most interesting articles I've seen from toms. I already had an idea of the standings between intel and AMD per core per clock by how game minimum specs usually say something like "Minimum Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz or AMD Athlon x2 2.4Ghz", but it was nice seeing it put into perspective.

    Hope you revist it with bulldozer/ivy bridge.
  • 2 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , July 26, 2011 6:18 AM
    Great review, long live my i7 2600k :) 
  • 4 Hide
    yyk71200 , July 26, 2011 6:39 AM
    Looks like Bulldozer is going to combat SB by moderate increasing of IPC AND increase in frequencies. Purely by IPC it will lose to SB but if it can deliver high frequencies at the same time, we may have a decent competition.
  • 1 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , July 26, 2011 6:44 AM
    cangeliniHow many more were there? That's not something I've seen happen before.Best,Chris

    I don't know for certain, maybe around 6 or 8. I'm only aware of this because I was one of the people who posted a comment.
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , July 26, 2011 6:48 AM
    Now this was a great article! Good work guys!
  • 9 Hide
    yyk71200 , July 26, 2011 7:00 AM
    DjEaZy... you couldn't wait until the bulldozer comes out?

    I think it may be a bit difficult to test bulldozer this way because configuration of cores within modules is rather funky. That is they are not full fledged cores within a module.
  • 14 Hide
    clonazepam , July 26, 2011 7:25 AM
    Pretty cool article.

    Thanks.

    That must have been one tedious sob to pull off. I wouldn't have had the discipline to even finish the P4 tests lol...

    I'm gonna go stroke my kentsfield... I think it knows when the new system's up, it's going to be subjected to 1.5+ volts ala Frankenstein's Monster... bwuahahahaha
  • 4 Hide
    PreferLinux , July 26, 2011 7:44 AM
    yyk71200Also, clock for clock testing is not always fair. For example, in P4 vs. Athlon 64 days clock for clock testing would not be fair because while P4 was much worse in IPC, it was designed for higher frequencies. Sure, Athlon still bit it in most cases, but gap was much narrower that clock for clock tests would suggest. We may have a similar situation (in reverse) in SB vs. Bulldozer.

    You talking stock or overclocked? And if overclocked, then is it a 24/7 clock with what cooler? My point is that we don't really have any idea how Bulldozer will compare in clock speeds – it could be very well at stock but very poorly when overclocked (24/7 clock, but once again I'm not specifying with what cooling (could be low-end air to high end water or even LN2!) – but same on each), for all we know.
  • 22 Hide
    jcesmi , July 26, 2011 8:05 AM
    Where are those bots i buy all my cloths from?
  • 9 Hide
    outlw6669 , July 26, 2011 8:09 AM
    Excellent work reviewers!
    It is great to see a solid, in depth, tech article again =D

    @yyk7120, the entire point of this article was to show the relative IPC performance between the different architectures.
    In a battle of pure IPC performance, nominalizing all variables is not being unfair, it is entirely necessary.
    Think of it more as an in depth look into the underlying architectures rather than another AMD vs Intel @ price point that most are so used to.
  • 14 Hide
    memadmax , July 26, 2011 8:16 AM
    This is about as close as you can get to real raw core efficiency. I love this article and was wondering the same thing as well.
  • 20 Hide
    Anonymous , July 26, 2011 8:25 AM
    I would LOVE to see one additional page - 'performance per transistor'

    Basically - take the performance data, and divide the results by the amount of transistors per core (eg 1 billion transistors for 8 core -> 125 mil transistors for core). There would be a bias towards CPUs with huge L3 cache (as they can use all of it), but it would still be very interesting thing to see

    I would really want to see how the efficiency of the processors increased compared to the amount of transistors they use
Display more comments