S939 vs. S754 for a photoshop PC

[Ike0069]

I know photoshop really likes RAM and also should like clock speed.

let's just assume for this thread that we are comparing a S754 3700+ Clawhammer (2.4 GHz, 1MB L2 cache) with 2x1 GB RAM vs. a 3700+ SanDiego (2.2 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache) with 2X1 GB RAM.
Everything but the MB and CPU would be the exact same.

So which is more important in this case. The higher clock speed of the S754 chip, or the dual channel memory controller of the S939 chip?

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
I know photoshop really likes RAM and also should like clock speed.

let's just assume for this thread that we are comparing a S754 3700+ Clawhammer (2.4 GHz, 1MB L2 cache) with 2x1 GB RAM vs. a 3700+ SanDiego (2.2 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache) with 2X1 GB RAM.
Everything but the MB and CPU would be the exact same.

So which is more important in this case. The higher clock speed of the S754 chip, or the dual channel memory controller of the S939 chip?

The s939, since not only is the core of the s939 chips better, so is the memory (as you kind of said)

 

[Varun]

Clock speed

 

[dguy6789]

Socket 754 BY A LONG SHOT. An Athlon 64 with dual channel memory, 2.2Ghz clock speed, 1MB of cache and on socket 939, would be slower than an Athlon 64 with single channel memory, 2.3Ghz clock speed, 512k of cache, and socket 754.

Clock speed matters more than ANYTHING else when it comes to the Athlon 64. If upgradability is not a concern, get the fastest cpu you can with the most amount of ram you can.

 

[Ike0069]

I'm really just wanting to know about which CPU would run Photoshop better/faster. My guess was the S754, but just looking for confirmation I guess.

 

[Rike]

CPU speed ususally trumps all.

However, there are three other differences between the CPUs you other than those you listed: process, mem controller version, and SSE3.

1. IIRC, Clawhammer is 130nm and San Diego is 90nm. Equally clocked, the 90nm is up to 3% faster.
2. In addition to dual channel, San Diego also has a newer, better mem controller. Maybe worth another percent or two on top of the 1-3% you'd get from dual channel. Maybe.
3. San Deigo has support for SSE3. This is only an advantage if Photoshop uses SSE3, which I don't know. It might be woth looking in to.

All that said, I'd bet the Clawhammer would win, but not by as much as the clock speed difference would indicate. The San Deigo is clocked at 91.7% of the Clawhammer.

 

[feelthaflo]

WOW...Not to disagree with a "Platinum Member", but L2 cache on a CPU die is way more important than clock speed, especially given the O/C potential on 90nm cores like the San Diego. You should be able to get 2.4 out of the S/D with less heat than the 130nm Clawhammer with ease. Less heat = longer life and higher potential clocks. Also, there is more room for upgrades in a socket 939-based system. Go with the San Diego all day long. Why do you think the FX-57 (world's best gaming processor) is S/D based?

 

[Concillian]

For A64 clock speed > everything. For Photoshop when comparing configurations that have exactly the same amount of RAM I think that would go doubly so.

Limitation in photoshop is RAM SIZE, RAM speed is of much lesser relevance. CPU power is going to be more important than having dual channel.

This reveiw shows what I just explained:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=8

2.4GHz/512k cache/dual channel is about 2.8% faster than the S754 at equivalent clock speed.

2.6GHZ / 1MB cache / dual channel is about 6.7% faster than something 200 MHz slower.

S754 at the same "+ rating" as 939 is almost always faster. You're talking about pretty minute performance differences overall if you have a +6.7% but -2.8%, but still, speed is speed.

 

[gnumantsc]

I would go with the S939 hands down there are even better chipsets with s939 like nforce 4 than there was with s754.

And you can always go Dual Core too which you can't with s754. Maybe you want to try using GIMP instead of Photoshop? It is free

 

[Tiamat]

939 only because it has better upgradability, better chipsets, and price difference with S754 isnt very great.

Also make sure you invest in good quick harddrives. Doesnt have to be Raptors, but any of the fast drives are good.

You will want at bare minimum, 2GB of ram.

If you can, overclocking would be quite beneficial.

 

[biostud]

doesn't it take advantage of dual core?

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: biostud
doesn't it take advantage of dual core?

Actually, I was just reading about that. It appears photoshop does like multi-threading, and supposedly it does very well on the X2's. Now I just want to find some tests that show this.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
It appears photoshop does like multi-threading, and supposedly it does very well on the X2's. Now I just want to find some tests that show this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1655195&enterthread=y

 

[DanDaMan315]

3800 X2 for the win.

 

[Ike0069]

Yea, it looks like dual core is the way to go for PS.

 

[xgsound]

AFAIK the 754 boards in general only support 2 mem slots at full speed, with 3 slots max. The 939 boards generally support 4 slots at full speed. Is this correct? If so, with memory so important to Photoshop that alone would make me favor 939.

Add to that the few % for dual channel, the less heat of 90nm, the upgraded memory controller of Venice/San Diego and it seems you would be ahead with 939 without considering future upgrades.

I thought the AMD64 X2 and Photoshop were made for each other, and the 3800+ X2 is avaliable now. Coupled with 1G X 4 that should really roll.


Jim