Paint.NET x64 3.05
Website: Paint.NET
This is the 64-bit version of the popular free image editing software, Paint.NET. It's not as advanced as something like Adobe Photoshop CS3 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, but it does serve well for most image editing tasks.
We used the PDNBench script to test the processing times for a range of images and filters. The multi-threaded software also takes advantage of multi-core processors quite effectively.
For more information on what the benchmark script entails, please see
this thread on the Paint.NET forums.
-
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Phenom 9900 (4x2.6GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9700 (4x2.4GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Phenom 9600 ES (4x2.3GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9500 ES (4x2.2GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
14.472
-
15.648
-
17.614
-
19.346
-
26.206
-
27.950
-
28.993
-
29.036
-
31.141
-
33.056
-
43.054
-
46.277
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Again, we see nice scaling for the Phenoms and the performance is vastly better than the old Athlon 64 X2s, however it's also still quite a way behind the Intel quad-core CPUs, where the Q6600 at 2.4GHz is nearly 27 percent faster than the 2.6GHz Phenom.
File Compression & Encryption:
Our file compression and decompression tests were split into two halves to cover a broad spectrum of performance. The first test we ran was to compress and encrypt the MPEG-2 source file from our video encoding test with the highest quality compression ratio. Secondly, we compressed and encrypted the folder of 400 photographs used in our Photoshop Elements test with the same compression settings.
-
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Phenom 9900 (4x2.6GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9700 (4x2.4GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9600 ES (4x2.3GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9500 ES (4x2.2GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
97
-
103
-
111
-
115
-
122
-
125
-
127
-
128
-
134
-
136
-
150
-
159
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
-
Phenom 9900 (4x2.6GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9700 (4x2.4GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9600 ES (4x2.3GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Phenom 9500 ES (4x2.2GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
-
92
-
98
-
111
-
111
-
123
-
127
-
131
-
140
-
141
-
142
-
155
-
156
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Again, we see some scaling between the Phenoms and the performance is largely higher than what's offered by the Athlon 64 X2s, however all the dual and quad-core Intel Core 2 chips from around the same price to the top of the range are still faster.
Want to comment? Please log in.