50 CPUs tested in Adobe Lightroom 5.3 RAW conversion

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

CAT-THE-FIFTH

Caporegime
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
25,336
Location
Planet Earth
Last edited:
My old i7 2600k still seems to tick away alright although mines overclocked a reasonable amount.
 
jesus is my CPU that slow? an i7 920 btw. these enw cpu's cant be double my performance?

ive seen other benchmarks on things like gaming and compressing/unzipping large files and these new cpu's are barely 50% faster then my one yet it appears in LR they are 80+% faster?
 
jonneymendoza said:
jesus is my CPU that slow? an i7 920 btw. these enw cpu's cant be double my performance?

ive seen other benchmarks on things like gaming and compressing/unzipping large files and these new cpu's are barely 50% faster then my one yet it appears in LR they are 80+% faster?
Click to expand...

I have one too, my machine is ancient by modern standards but still fully functional. SSD and graphics upgrades and I don't have any additional demands for power, it's been years since I got it now.

From their benchmark you need to remember they are running the CPU at stock frequencies. The i7920 was a 2.6GHz CPU! I won't compare with the latest i7's with much faster stock clocks (although they will OC'd mine runs at a 4GHz OC).
 
Shame they have no (decent) low power chips in that list. :(

I'm thinking of the lower power Haswell chips like the 4690S and 4770T, or the U chips in Surfaces/Macbooks.
 
Genoma said:
I have one too, my machine is ancient by modern standards but still fully functional. SSD and graphics upgrades and I don't have any additional demands for power, it's been years since I got it now.

From their benchmark you need to remember they are running the CPU at stock frequencies. The i7920 was a 2.6GHz CPU! I won't compare with the latest i7's with much faster stock clocks (although they will OC'd mine runs at a 4GHz OC).
Click to expand...

yea clock for clock these cpu's are barely faster then our 920's in all the benchmarks i have seen.
 
2x A10 chips and Phenom besting an i7 920 with its HT and triple channel ram?
The A10 I have in my HTPC while fine for general stuff is certainly no workhorse and I wouldn't want to do loads of intensive stuff on it.
 
Last edited:
Have an i7-2600K myself but clocked at 4Ghz and have no performance complaints really.

Frankly the test is rather rubbish. There's no detail on exactly what they did, all it says is "converted from RAW". What does that mean? Processing the RAW and generating a preview? What size preview?
 
Columbo said:
2x A10 chips and Phenom besting an i7 920 with its HT and triple channel ram?
The A10 I have in my HTPC while fine for general stuff is certainly no workhorse and I wouldn't want to do loads of intensive stuff on it.
Click to expand...

Maybe because AMD has been working more closely with Adobe now. You do realise that CS has added OpenCL acceleration due to AMD and Apple,so it does make sense that at the same time they have been doing optimisations for their CPUs too. Remember this is also for only one of the current Adobe products too,so there is probably different relative positions with other software they make like say Premiere Pro,so balance to the force might be restored!! :p

However,Lightroom benchmarks are thin on the ground,so this is why I posted it - plenty of sites test Adobe PS and PP.

Edit!!

Remember that the Core i7 920 has quite a low base clockspeed and low Turbo,so is beaten in many applications now by newer CPUs from both AMD and Intel.

Overclock it though,and it shows a greater percentage increase in performance due to the low Turbo,and it is why the Core i7 920 overclocked still holds up very well.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
Have an i7-2600K myself but clocked at 4Ghz and have no performance complaints really.

Frankly the test is rather rubbish. There's no detail on exactly what they did, all it says is "converted from RAW". What does that mean? Processing the RAW and generating a preview? What size preview?
Click to expand...

Overall, we have converted 30 raw image files from a Nikon D800 with a total size of 1.23 GiByte.
Click to expand...

Plus the video also shows exactly what they did,which is better than most sites bother to do TBH!

Its in German but indicates they generated 30 jpegs at the same resolution as the RAW files. They used sRGB and 87% quality for the jpegs.
 
Last edited:
the shadow said:
Only 4GB Ram used
Click to expand...

Probably a typo,since here is an earlier review of the Xeon E3 1230 V3 the previous month:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Xeon-E3-1230-v3-Test-1099616/


Lightroom 5.3 (sec)
Core i7-4770K 174
Xeon E3-1240 v3 176
Xeon E3-1230 v3 182
AMD FX-9370 172
Core i5-4670K OC 4,3GHz 161
Core i5-4670K 181
AMD FX-8350 181

8GB of RAM used in dual channel for that test for at least the socket 1150 and AM3+ chips,and the scores are exactly the same. They missed out the "2X" part in the chart.

Maybe if someone knows German,perhaps ask in the review thread??

It also means the DC chips,especially the Core i7 4790K running at 4GHZ to 4.4GHZ will be great for LR 5.3 too if you are not overclocking.

A Haswell Core i5 at 4.5GHZ is probably going to get quite close to a Core i7 3960X.

Edit!!

It seems HT does not make a massive difference,and there is not massive core scaling above 4 cores either.

So a Core i5 4670K,fast drives and a decent amount of RAM seem to be the best compromise for LR ATM.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom