Paint.NET x64

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.




Paint.NET x64 3.20

PDNBench

  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 Overclock (3x3.0GHz 3.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • 25.1
  • 29.1
  • 32.4
  • 33.4
  • 34.8
  • 35.7
  • 36.9
  • 36.9
  • 37.8
  • 40.3
  • 42.8
  • 43.4
  • 45.3
  • 49.1
  • 52.0
  • 53.6
  • 55.2
  • 57.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, image manipulation programs like Paint.NET love cores and it’s therefore no surprise to see the Phenom X3 8750 not match the similarly clocked X4 9750. The 8750 ends up being around 30 percent slower, which is a little more than we would have expected and it means it falls behind the cheaper Intel Core 2 Duo E6850. However, the higher-than-expected performance drop is probably down to the fact that the application isn’t optimised for triple-core processors yet.

File Compression & Encryption:

Website: WinRAR

Our file compression 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.

Large File Compression & Encryption

WinRAR 3.71, Multithreaded, 276MB source file

  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 Overclock (3x3.0GHz 3.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • 117.6
  • 123.3
  • 125.7
  • 127.7
  • 128.3
  • 129.3
  • 132.6
  • 134.0
  • 138.3
  • 139.3
  • 139.6
  • 139.7
  • 140.3
  • 146.0
  • 146.3
  • 152.0
  • 154.3
  • 178.6
0
50
100
150
200
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

Small File Compression & Encryption

WinRAR 3.71, Multithreaded, 400 2048x1536 Photos

  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 Overclock (3x3.0GHz 3.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • AMD Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • 103.3
  • 105.6
  • 113.7
  • 115.0
  • 116.7
  • 117.6
  • 123.0
  • 124.3
  • 127.0
  • 130.3
  • 132.3
  • 133.0
  • 136.0
  • 136.6
  • 137.0
  • 141.0
  • 143.0
  • 157.3
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

With our file compression tests, we found that the extra core on the Phenom X4 9750 made a difference in the large file test scenario, but it made almost no difference with the small file test scenario. We found this particularly interesting, because it’s clear that there are advantages for more cores in WinRAR, but just not in all file compression scenarios.
Discuss this in the forums
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04