Amd Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core CPU - Photoshop Test

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
TheRapture said:
You aint stupid....FX57 is a premium unit...as long as the app can't use dual cores :D

That being said, I am amazed at what the X2's are able to accomplish...poor G5 owners :p

Thanks for the lift, but I did a test last night. I ran RAR compressing a 2 gig file and then tried to run Half Life 2. I got like 3 FPS. My freind did the same thing and said he was running smooth as silk.

However, since even with photography and web design, I usualy only run one app at a time, switching between them as I go--and that isn't true multitasking. PEople think if they have 10 programs open at one time and then are ony using one program that's multitasking.

Multitasking is having a game playing in one woindow and having a C++ compiler wroking at the same time. I'll probably never do taht sort of thing, but it's nice to have the capability. I mean I could probably come up with things I could do that take time now because I'm trained into thinking I can't do more than one thing at a time.

Still, the X2 at 2.4 Ghz--I'd like to ahve it over my FX57.
 

dderidex

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
6,328
DougWD said:
However, since even with photography and web design, I usualy only run one app at a time, switching between them as I go--and that isn't true multitasking. PEople think if they have 10 programs open at one time and then are ony using one program that's multitasking.

Multitasking is having a game playing in one woindow and having a C++ compiler wroking at the same time. I'll probably never do taht sort of thing, but it's nice to have the capability. I mean I could probably come up with things I could do that take time now because I'm trained into thinking I can't do more than one thing at a time.
I dunno, Anandtech's "multitasking/gaming" scenario showed pretty HUGE gains for multie-core CPUs - the X2 '4200+' getting TWICE the FX-55s score in Doom 3, for example.

And it wasn't like they were recompressing a rar file or running a C++ compiler. All that was running was:
- Firefox with a few browser windows open
- Norton Antivirus and MS Antispyware
- iTunes playing some MP3s
- a Newsleecher running (approximately the same thing as running a bittorrent client)

Those are a pretty COMMON combination of tasks....and it's enough to let a 4200+ DOUBLE an FX-55s score.

Not bad!
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
That's exactly waht I am saying. if you are running a program lke WInAmp and it is playing music, you will take a huge hit in performance in your game. But if you leave WinAmp open and then let it idle wtihout any music, the frame rates come back up to pretty much the same thing with WinAmp closed.

I did the iamge thing again with WinAmp playing music - I have onboard sound - and it took 149 seconds compared to 64 with winamp OPEN but not PLAYING.

So eyah man, I agree. I am sending my new week old FX57 back to exchange it to the X2 2.4 Ghz CPU on Tuesday. After this word gets out AAMD isn't going to sell very many single core FX 57s or single core anything for that matter. I'll bet they go all dual core in the next year. I think the only reason they made the FX57 ws to say that they beat Intel anytime anywhere anyway--and tehy did! Gotta hand it to AMD. Man they ahve really come on strong in teh last three years. I think they will blow Intel out of the water now. Intel still doesn't have the 64 bit archetecture either for Desktops. Intel better get use to 2nd fiddle.

dderidex said:
I dunno, Anandtech's "multitasking/gaming" scenario showed pretty HUGE gains for multie-core CPUs - the X2 '4200+' getting TWICE the FX-55s score in Doom 3, for example.

And it wasn't like they were recompressing a rar file or running a C++ compiler. All that was running was:
- Firefox with a few browser windows open
- Norton Antivirus and MS Antispyware
- iTunes playing some MP3s
- a Newsleecher running (approximately the same thing as running a bittorrent client)

Those are a pretty COMMON combination of tasks....and it's enough to let a 4200+ DOUBLE an FX-55s score.

Not bad!
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
2,881
Errr... on topic :p :

1:42

P4 2.6 GHz w/ HT
512 megs of ddr400 ram
250GB 8mb cache WD hard drive
-using CS2
-running winamp and aim.

OC'ed to 2.9 GHz, and turned off programs: 1:20

Can't wait to get a dual core a64... hopefully by the end of the year.
 

The Cobra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
3,039
AMD FX-55 System Photoshop CS: 49 secs

Powerbook G4 1.67GHz and 1.5GB of Ram: 1 minute 48 seconds
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
DougWD said:
I did the iamge thing again with WinAmp playing music - I have onboard sound - and it took 149 seconds compared to 64 with winamp OPEN but not PLAYING.

So eyah man, I agree. I am sending my new week old FX57 back to exchange it to the X2 2.4 Ghz CPU on Tuesday. .


You are going to LOVE the X2....I am sooooo glad I changed my mind at the last minute, I almost ordered a single core.... :eek:
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,471
I'm quite suprised how well my P4 does against all these dual core Athlons. Does'nt seem like much point in upgarding right now.
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
Has anyone collected these results into a table?

My other rig (with a PhotoShop license) is:

Asus P4C800-E with 2 gigs memory, Pentium 4 3.2 GHz overclocked to 3.36 GHz.
Time == 58 seconds.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
Archer75 said:
I'm quite suprised how well my P4 does against all these dual core Athlons. Does'nt seem like much point in upgarding right now.


It's all in your clock speed....but try to do two intensive cpu tasks at the same time and see what happens... :p
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,471
TheRapture said:
It's all in your clock speed....but try to do two intensive cpu tasks at the same time and see what happens... :p

I have no need to do intensive CPU tasks at the same time. I do run some tasks at the same time but they aren't CPU intensive so it's never been an issue.

But I have no doubt that doing so would decrease performance on my chip but would not on an X2.
 

BillR

Born Again Cynic
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
18,540
3800 X-2 at 2.5, 42 sec.

After a reboot and RAM flush 38 sec.

Not too shabby for a "non MAC" ;)

Photo Shop 7 btw
 

ProStreet

n00b
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
3
Hello everybody!!! I am a new member here. Let me list my rig.

A64 3000+ Venice clocked at 2.5 24/7 and 2.6 for benching.
Asus A8N SLI Deluxe
2gigs of OCZ PC3200 4X512 at 2-3-2-6 2T
7800GTX
Audigy 4
WD Raptor 74GB
Sony DL DVD burner
Thermaltake Tsunami Dream case
600watt SLI certified Seasonic psu <<<< Amazing psu!


Now I just ran this test at 2.5 with my rig on WinXP pro and CS2 and did it in 64 seconds. This is much faster than some other users here with a similar rig. I wonder why?

BTW I came over here from futuremark.com and everybody here seems like they know what they are talking about. I hope you all welcome me in as a regular member!!! :D
 

BillR

Born Again Cynic
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
18,540
ProStreet said:
Hello everybody!!! I am a new member here. Let me list my rig.

A64 3000+ Venice clocked at 2.5 24/7 and 2.6 for benching.
Asus A8N SLI Deluxe
2gigs of OCZ PC3200 4X512 at 2-3-2-6 2T
7800GTX
Audigy 4
WD Raptor 74GB
Sony DL DVD burner
Thermaltake Tsunami Dream case
600watt SLI certified Seasonic psu <<<< Amazing psu!


Now I just ran this test at 2.5 with my rig on WinXP pro and CS2 and did it in 64 seconds. This is much faster than some other users here with a similar rig. I wonder why?

BTW I came over here from futuremark.com and everybody here seems like they know what they are talking about. I hope you all welcome me in as a regular member!!! :D


Welcome aboard, most of the people in this thread are good guys, hope you enjoy.

As for your speed, could well be that 2 gig-0-ram you are sporting ;)
 

Captain Al

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
310
3000+ Winchester @ 2.3 / 1024 RAM

I pulled 1 Minute 12 seconds. On CS2.

I did have a handfull of things running, Dreamweaver, Outlook, etc...
So that would help drive the time up a bit.

but overall.. not at all impressive, there's a processor upgrade in my future anyhow.
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
OK I got my new stuff.

You remeber above I was testing with the FX57.

I now have the X2 2.4 4800 installed, all stock, and I replaced teh Corsair Value Select RAM with the Corsair matched pair XMS Pro series. Again, no over clocking.
The X2 4800 did it in 42, 36, and 36 using the Abode Timer.

As you can see above, the FX's best time was 64.4 seconds.

But let's see what a dual core compared to a single core can do. Try this:
Start WinRAR compressing a large file, like 1 GB, just so it keeps running throughout the test image blur test.

With my X2 4800: 70.8, 45, 70.7--will be instersting to see what the single cores can do. I say use RAR because I know it pegs your CPU at 100% while it's working.

Overall, I'm LOVING this X2. I'm glad my supplier let me return it for no restock fee.

Oh yeah, another test yo can do to see the difference between single and duall, is to, as I stated above, run RAR again and try playing your favorite game--such as Half Life 2. I tried it on my FX57 and got like 3 FPS. Smooth as silk with the X2.
 

M3at

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
238
60 seconds on the s939 in my sig with cs2

Haven't tried the s754 in my sig
 

mjz_5

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
3,637
4min 20 sec

on

Everyday Box: AMD 1.33GHz - Asus A7A 266 - 768 SDRAM - Asus GeForce 2 GTS - Samsung 715v Monitor
DLink 530 Gb NIC - 2x 20GB Maxtor - Plextor PX-W1210A CD-RW | LG 16X DVD
-----------------

1min35sec

on

Main Rig: A64 3000+ - Asus K8N - Samsung 2GB DDR (@ 2.5-3-3-7) - eVGA GeForce 6800 GT
WD 74GB Raptor - NEC 2510A DL DVD | Sony 16x DVD - HDA Mystique 7.1 - DLink 530 Gb NIC
 

xappie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
1,378
1:40 on Pentium 4 3.0 with HT and 1GB ram. This is my work system - not the system in my sig - but similar. Used PS 7.01.
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
p0tempkin said:
BTW, I was also using a relatively slow hard disk; Seagate 40GB PATA. Using a faster hard drive for the scratch disk, or using a RAM disk, would definitely shave some seconds off the time.

I don't notice the program hitting the scratch disk during the test.
 

M3at

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
238
Ok, just tried this with my work computer. It's a P4 2.8 with HT on and 512KB ram.

1 minute 5 seconds. with cs2

Dumb question. I've been using a stop watch for this, but I would like to use the PS timer. Where is the timer in photoshop?
 

BillR

Born Again Cynic
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
18,540
BillR said:
3800 X-2 at 2.5, 42 sec.

After a reboot and RAM flush 38 sec.

Not too shabby for a "non MAC" ;)

Photo Shop 7 btw

Just for interest I upgraded this same machine to 2 gigs of ram and re ran the test

Times dropped to 25 sec flat, that extra gig do make a difference ;)
 

swoop56

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
418
Nuh uh. You din't say simon say's. But I'll do it anyway.


33 seconds in CS2
4400+, A8N-SLI Prem, 2GB RAM

1 minute, 8 seconds in CS2
3500+, K8N Neo2 Platinum, 1GB RAM

2 min, 33 seconds in PS7
XP 2700+, A7N8X, 512 MB

Out of curiosity. I did it on my powerbook g4 1.33ghz w/768mb ram
3 minutes, 49 seconds in CS

I wonder how well my school's computer's would do.
Dual 1.8 G5's 1GB RAM
 

BillR

Born Again Cynic
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
18,540
mikeblas said:
What is a "RAM flush"?

There are a few freeware programs you can download that will empty your ram of what appear to be useless bits not in use at the moment.

I did it as an after thought, it’s not a program I use on a regular basis. Such a program used to be very popular back in the win9X days because those older programs didn’t do as well at memory management as is done today.

The biggest move was to two gigs, photo shop loves RAM
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
BillR said:
There are a few freeware programs you can download that will empty your ram of what appear to be useless bits not in use at the moment.

Snake oil, you mean.
 

acrh2

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
107
DougWD said:
OK I got my new stuff.

You remeber above I was testing with the FX57.

I now have the X2 2.4 4800 installed, all stock, and I replaced teh Corsair Value Select RAM with the Corsair matched pair XMS Pro series. Again, no over clocking.
The X2 4800 did it in 42, 36, and 36 using the Abode Timer.

As you can see above, the FX's best time was 64.4 seconds.

But let's see what a dual core compared to a single core can do. Try this:
Start WinRAR compressing a large file, like 1 GB, just so it keeps running throughout the test image blur test.

With my X2 4800: 70.8, 45, 70.7--will be instersting to see what the single cores can do. I say use RAR because I know it pegs your CPU at 100% while it's working.

Overall, I'm LOVING this X2. I'm glad my supplier let me return it for no restock fee.

Oh yeah, another test yo can do to see the difference between single and duall, is to, as I stated above, run RAR again and try playing your favorite game--such as Half Life 2. I tried it on my FX57 and got like 3 FPS. Smooth as silk with the X2.

Congrats! You now have a damn fast blurry horse.
:)
 

Tim_axe

Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
943
1 min + 15 secs

Photoshop Elements 2
Dual AthlonXP-M Barton 2400+ @ 2.4GHz (133x18)
756MB RAM (PC3200 + PC2700 @ PC2100, 2-3-3-6-9-8)


There is a gigantic listing of machines in a similar test (need to register for their forums though, and it isn't a community dedicated to computer hardware but photographic hardware). The Dual G5's smoked through it for the most part. It is at FredMiranda Forums if you're still interested.
 

Talonz

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,453
1 min 10 seconds with Matlab, Kaspersky AV, and Peerguardian2 running in the background.

PS CS2, but the system has been up for a while

Specs in sig. I was about to upgrade to a venice, but seriously reconsidering now.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
47
Guy Gadbois said:
Ok my "pre upgrade" results were 3:25 on the following system:

Photoshop CS (NOT CS2)
AMD XP1600+
Win XP Pro SP2
1.25gb RAM (512mb of PC3200 and 768mb of PC2100 - I know, I know... I need to get all the same speed ram... in due time!!!)
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
160gb SATA
eVGA e-GeForce FX 5200 128mb 8x AGP

AFTER UPGRADING:
I finished in :55 seconds (I believe that is a 73% inprovement over the XP 1600+) :D
Asus A8V Deluxe
AMD64 X2 3800+
Photoshop CS (not CS2)
Win XP Pro (no SP installed yet)
1gb RAM (512mb of PC3200 and 512mb of PC2100)
160gb SATA
eVGA e-GeForce FX 5200 128mb 8x AGP


I have just tried a bit of OC'ing and am now running at 2.2 GHz instead of 2.0 GHz. I am also downloading CS2 and will rerun test with CS2 and report results.

**EDIT** - Ok, my time after the OC to 2.2 GHz and using CS2 was 38 seconds (an 81.5% improvement over my old system, WOW!)


Ok, after further overclocking to 2.4GHz, my time was 34 seconds.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
37
Right now my current rig is
2 - Athlon XP 2400+ running as MPs
Win XP Pro SP@
1GB PC3200
Gigabyte GA-7DPXDW+
80GB HD
ATI 7000 64MB
Photoshop 7

And it pulled a 1:35

I am building a new rig, and after reading through this post I think that getting the X2 3800+ wouldn't be a bad idea. I have been on the fence over getting the 3800+ or the 4200+ version, might as well save the money and overclock it a little.
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
M3at said:
Ok, just tried this with my work computer. It's a P4 2.8 with HT on and 512KB ram.

1 minute 5 seconds. with cs2

Dumb question. I've been using a stop watch for this, but I would like to use the PS timer. Where is the timer in photoshop?

In the picture framne lower left corner, click the down arrow and choose "timing."
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
Talonz said:
1 min 10 seconds with Matlab, Kaspersky AV, and Peerguardian2 running in the background.

PS CS2, but the system has been up for a while

Specs in sig. I was about to upgrade to a venice, but seriously reconsidering now.

You can't run them "in the background." To get an idea of the power the dual cores have, you MUST PEG YOUR CPU, then run then test. USe a large RAR file becsaue RAR will PEG your CPU.

Also, don't adjust RAR to run with less CPU--background. Leave it at "normal" to get an accurate reading.
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
extremefire said:
Right now my current rig is
2 - Athlon XP 2400+ running as MPs
Win XP Pro SP@
1GB PC3200
Gigabyte GA-7DPXDW+
80GB HD
ATI 7000 64MB
Photoshop 7

And it pulled a 1:35

I am building a new rig, and after reading through this post I think that getting the X2 3800+ wouldn't be a bad idea. I have been on the fence over getting the 3800+ or the 4200+ version, might as well save the money and overclock it a little.

Yes and if you go to Tom's Hard drive forums they have lots of information about doing that, adn they run as fast as the 4800s too.
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
Oh yeah, as far as the original poster is concerned, I agree--no flaming. All he is doing is challenging our information, and that is a sign of intellegence. If we think teh AMD is better, then we should be able to counter each objection. If not, then that is why he is asking these questions.
 

DougWD

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
502
Another Test:

Applications not only running, but working.

1) AVG anti virus running a scan on all files
2) SpyBot Search and Destroy running a full scan
3) RAR compressing a 4.5 GB file
4) Seagate Firewall
5) Spybot Tea Timer
6) ASUS Probe running
7) FireFox--this window
9) All the other processes that run in the backround for Win XP Pro., such as LAN and Onboard sound drivers.

Ran the Blur test three times and got 68, 48, 67.
 
Top