Isn't it too low for Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz?

[Deadtrees]

My setup:

Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz,
(Bus Speed 400Mhz x 8 = 3.2 Ghz)
6 GB of Ram, 4-4-4-12
Windows Vista 64bit Ultimate,
Photoshop CS3

Users who have similar setup as mine report scores of 25 seconds. I get about 35 seconds.
One thing I wonder how the measurement of timing should be done. Using a stop watch, it's in fact 1 min 20 sec though photoshop's built-in 'timing' shows 35 sec.
(though I haven't confirmed it, I believe bulit-in timing function of photoshop only reports the timing of last the task)

Anway, what's your score?


Edit: I ran several re-tests and the resultf vary from 24 ~ 35 sec.

 

[myocardia]

While I don't own Photoshop (I'd never pay anywhere near that much $$ for any single piece of software), I do know that most people who use it very seriously always have two or more hard drives. It's supposed to be alot faster when you're able to read from one drive, while writing to another, much like video editing is faster with two drives. Are you using two hard drives, or one?

 

[VirtualLarry]

With 6GB of RAM, are you running in dual-channel? That could make a big difference too.

 

[dbcooper1]

Separate physical drives for images, Windows swap file, Photoshop scratch disk to optimize your results. I get about 35 seconds with an e6420@3.2GHz. You do have to time it manually and set Photoshop to display efficiency to see that it's 100%; anything less than that and you're I/O bound although with 6GB of RAM, you shouldn't be. It keeps the cpu load at or around 100% on mine; don't know about a quad.