Updated: Tuning C'n'Q: Maximize Power And Performance, Part 2

Benchmark Results: Photoshop CS4

For this test, we ran Driverheaven.net's Photoshop benchmark script, using the default test image. The script runs several filters in sequence: Texturizer, CMYK Color Conversion, RGB Color Conversion, Ink Outlines, Dust & Scratches, Watercolor, Texturizer, Stained Glass, Lighting Effects, Mosaic Tiles, Extrude, Smart Blur, Underpainting, Palette Knife, and Sponge.

The red line says it all: Adobe Photoshop CS4, or more precisely, the filters used in the benchmark script, do not fully utilize both cores (Ed.: our own in-house Photoshop CS4 benchmark, on the other hand, is made up of threaded filters, so your mileage may vary).

The performance graph looks familiar, doesn't it? First, let’s talk results. If these numbers are to be believed, Photoshop (or at least the filters used in the benchmark) are more sensitive to clock rate than cache size. We already know they're not multi-threaded, so that’s not a factor. If the filters were, in fact, threaded, we wouldn’t see the Athlon II X2 250 offering more performance than the Phenom II X3 710. Remember, the 6MB L3 cache should have (using the term loosely here) compensated for the 400 MHz difference in clock.

Since the difference in power consumption is lower than the difference in time spent running the benchmark, total power consumption numbers favor the quad-core processors again.

  • nzprogamer
    GO AMD go
    i am telling you my next build AMD/ATI
    """I WILL BE BACK"""
    Reply
  • jedimasterben
    I'd be interested to see the tests performed on Windows 7 to see what the effect of reducing thread "jumping" would be.
    Reply
  • cnox
    Dammit...how can this part 2 article be posted before the Building the Balanced PC Part 2?

    Cumon....
    Reply
  • melangex3
    Great Stuff. Keep up the good work. This is the type of review that will keep me coming back. How about throwing in the ever popular 720 BE and the new 620 or 630 just for giggles?
    Reply
  • Ryun
    jedimasterbenI'd be interested to see the tests performed on Windows 7 to see what the effect of reducing thread "jumping" would be.
    I was thinking the same thing as well.

    Also, were the BIOSs all updated? The asynchronous clocks problem you're experiencing with Athlon II X2 was supposed to be fixed with updated CPU microcode.
    Reply
  • Summer Leigh Castle
    620 and 720? :D
    Reply
  • redgarl
    I must admit that lately AMD is impressive. I got a PII X3 720 BE unleashed at PII X4 20 fully stable with an Asus M4A78T-E latest BIOS. Let simply add that my 2 radeon 4850 OC in Crossfire are running as fast as 2 stock 4870...

    If you take into account that the 2 cards only cost 82$ each for a total of 165$ for the two... I can hardly believe that so little money can give so much results.
    Reply
  • JimmiG
    With my Phenom X4 9650, I found Cool n Quiet to be pretty much worthless without tweaks. There were huge performance drops across the board, especially with tasks that didn't use all four cores, or only loaded cores partially. Videos and games would stutter and skip every couple of frames, compressing files would take longer etc. I basically had a 1.1 GHz CPU that would sometimes run at 2.3 GHz, if it felt like it. Too bad there was no tweak guide available then. I just disabled CnQ which solved all problems but made the system use more power and run hotter.

    With my 955BE, I haven't really had a need to tweak CnQ. It might cause a slight performance hit in some rare cases, but generally when I need a 3.2 GHz CPU, that's what it delivers.
    Reply
  • tacoslave
    Nice, amd owns in the graphics department now with that $1.2 billion im sure amd is heading to pwn BOTH markets.
    Reply
  • saint19
    Good!!!, I have my 955 to 3.8GHz at 1.5V....
    Reply