Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0
For our Photoshop Elements test, we used a selection of 400 3 Megapixel 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.
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX SLI
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus Commando - 7900 GTX
-
Asus Commando - X1900 CF
-
331.0
-
355.0
-
336.0
-
356.0
-
337.0
-
353.0
-
327.0
-
349.0
-
331.0
-
352.0
-
328.0
-
317.0
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Performance is very good with an acceptable SLI overhead. It's better than the Inno3D nForce 680i SLI, and on par with the EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI. Overall there's not that much difference in performance across the field, with at most a few seconds separating the boards compared.
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.
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX SLI
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus Commando - 7900 GTX
-
Asus Commando - X1900 CF
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
119
-
112
-
113
-
108
-
109
-
115
-
115
-
112
-
115
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX SLI
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus Commando - 7900 GTX
-
Asus Commando - X1900 CF
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
97
-
100
-
101
-
94
-
94
-
102
-
97
-
95
-
103
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
There's no SLI overhead here but performance is only about average - the Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus came out on top in both scenarios. At least the newer BIOS on the XFX is consistently fast unlike the older BIOS on the Inno3D board.
File Decompression & Decryption:
The two RAR archives created during the compression and encryption tests were then decompressed and decrypted.
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX SLI
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus Commando - 7900 GTX
-
Asus Commando - X1900 CF
-
14
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
17
-
17
0
3
5.5
8
10.5
13
15.5
18
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
XFX nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX
-
Inno3D nForce 680i SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX
-
Foxconn N68S7AA - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX
-
Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus - 7900 GTX SLI
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX
-
EVGA nForce 680i LT SLI - 7900 GTX SLI
-
Asus Commando - 7900 GTX
-
Asus Commando - X1900 CF
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
25
-
24
-
25
-
25
-
26
-
26
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
Large file decompression is really very good, but small file decompression is only average. Again the performance spread across the field is very small, with only a few seconds separating the various comparisons made.
Want to comment? Please log in.