Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0:
For our Photoshop Elements test, we used a selection of 400 3MP photographs taken in a variety of surroundings using the batch file processing function in the Elements Editor. We performed all of the auto fixes, including Auto Levels, Auto Contrast, Auto Colour and Sharpen before resizing the image to 640x480 and saving as a high quality JPEG.
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
We saw some small benefits as a result of going to quad-core in Photoshop Elements, but more interesting was the benefit of moving from a 1066MHz FSB to 1333MHz. Comparing the E6750 to the E6700, which both have the same clockspeed, we saw a 23 second reduction in processing time.
WinRAR - 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 QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
-
Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Our compression and encryption tests also showed some signs that there were some small benefits as a result of moving to quad-cores. The standout result here was the performance difference between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the Core 2 Duo E6600 - in round terms, there was a 15 percent performance improvement and the Q6600 was only just over one second slower than the Core 2 Extreme X6800.
Want to comment? Please log in.