Slower Core2Quad or Faster Core2Duo in CS4

[John_TX]

I've currently got a slow Core2Duo 2ghz machine 2MB L2 w/4GB ram & it just isn't cutting it for processing 5D Mk II raw files in CS4 (they take forever).

Is a faster dual core processor, or a slightly slower quad core processor going to be quicker for processing photos?

I saw some benchmarks on Tomshardware with CS3 that showed no benefit moving from dual core to quad core when at the same clock speed (leading me to believe CS in general can only really use about 2 cores fully, thus a faster dual core would probably be quicker than a slower quad core). (see here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-8.html )
However, I'm not sure if CS4 is different with regards to splitting up the tasks over MORE cores (compared to CS3).

Regardless of CPU, I'll be moving over to 64bit Vista & throwing in 8GB of ram.

Intel Core 2 Duo ---E8500 3.16GHz 6MB L2 $180
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz 12MB L2 $230
Intel Core 2 Duo ---E8600 3.33GHz 6MB L2 $270
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.00GHz 12MB L2 $320

[Moppie]

I saw some benchmarks on Tomshardware with CS3 that showed no benefit moving from dual core to quad core when at the same clock speed (leading me to believe CS in general can only really use about 2 cores fully, thus a faster dual core would probably be quicker than a slower quad core). (see here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-8.html )
However, I'm not sure if CS4 is different with regards to splitting up the tasks over MORE cores (compared to CS3).


The Tomshardware tests are rubbish!
They run old filters that are very RAM intensive and make very little use of the processor. Hence the lack of difference between the quad and dual core processors shown in thier "benchmarks".


While there are some processes in photoshop, and even in lightroom, that will not take advantage of more than one core, the vast majority are multi-threaded, and will take advantage of as many cores as you can throw at them.

The benchmarking sticky at the top of the forum shows quite clearly that a quad core is considerably better than a dual core (even this benchmark is now becoming useless as the new i7 chips and tri channel ram walk all over it).

A quad core has other benifits as well, espeically if you multi-task at all.
I can run several applications at once, with out noticing any slow down in any of them. Vista shares out the cores as needed.



8GB of ram, and a Q9550 will a huge leap up for your machine. :cool:

[John_TX]

The Tomshardware tests are rubbish!
They run old filters that are very RAM intensive and make very little use of the processor. Hence the lack of difference between the quad and dual core processors shown in thier "benchmarks".


While there are some processes in photoshop, and even in lightroom, that will not take advantage of more than one core, the vast majority are multi-threaded, and will take advantage of as many cores as you can throw at them.

The benchmarking sticky at the top of the forum shows quite clearly that a quad core is considerably better than a dual core (even this benchmark is now becoming useless as the new i7 chips and tri channel ram walk all over it).

A quad core has other benifits as well, espeically if you multi-task at all.
I can run several applications at once, with out noticing any slow down in any of them. Vista shares out the cores as needed.



8GB of ram, and a Q9550 will a huge leap up for your machine. :cool:

Wow, it must be getting late as I completely missed the Sticky Benchmark thread! Thanks a bunch, that's exactly what I was looking for!

FWIW I ran the test twice after changing the history states and got this (added it to the end of the benchmark thread as well):

Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2Ghz 2MB L2 (800mhz FSB)
Intel DG965WH (using onboard graphics)
4GB DDR2 800mhz
Seagate 1TB 7200.11 scratch
Vista 32bit SP2 w/CS4

47 seconds (with 1 History State)
90 seconds (with 20 History States)