Prev: You can get Internet from a USB port, can you get TV
Next: What if I screw up???
From: Paul on 8 Aug 2010 14:55
geoff wrote:
> This kind of thing makes me think Intel has nothing new:
>
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/business-of-it/2010/08/05/intel-and-ftc-make-antitrust-compromise-40089742/?s_cid=938
> Intel and FTC make antitrust compromise
>
> This sentence has me wondering if Adobe optimized Premiere Elements for
> Intel processors:
>
> '. . . Intel claimed better software performance on Intel CPUs than on
> competitors' CPUs, but failed to inform customers that Intel had designed
> its compilers to give Intel chips a performance benefit.'
>
> --g

That has been known about for some time. Any company aware of it,
will just use another compiler, even though the Intel compiler
is a nice one.

This is an old result now, but here some AMD chips are completing a render
in less time than an Intel competitor. The new Intel processors are
head and shoulders above the ones in this example, so the tables
have turned a bit. But I still think you should be able to get
a good result.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opteron-xeon-workstation_18.html#sect0

This chart might be a bit more relevant to today. Your processor is
twice as fast as mine, if that makes you feel better :-)

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS4,1404.html

You'll notice these two results are pretty close to one another. Clock
for clock, AMD is slower than Intel, so in fact the math capability of
AMD is helping the result here. You might find the ratio on some
of the other benchmarks to be worse for AMD.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 (Deneb 4c) 3.4 GHz, DDR3-1333, 2 MB L2, 6 MB L3 136 seconds

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (Yorkfield 4c) 3.2 GHz, DDR3-1600, 12 MB L2 140 seconds

Here, the ratio is 94 seconds to 133 seconds, so Intel pulls ahead.
It's a seesaw battle, and depends on what you're doing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/iTunes-8.1.0.52,1405.html

Paul
From: geoff on 9 Aug 2010 20:36
>> This sentence has me wondering if Adobe optimized Premiere Elements for
>> Intel processors:
>>
>> '. . . Intel claimed better software performance on Intel CPUs than on
>> competitors' CPUs, but failed to inform customers that Intel had designed
>> its compilers to give Intel chips a performance benefit.'
>>
> That has been known about for some time.

I actually do not mind if they optimized it for Intel but they should have
two versions, one for Intel, the other for non-Intel, and the installer
figures out which one to install.

As pointed out before, this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uGA6-ASKK4

.. . . uses:

CPU T4300, 2.10GHz Processor
4.0 Gb Ram
Windows 7 Home Premium 64Bit.

.. . . and experiences no hesitation in the video even though the performance
is below an AMD 965:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Pentium+Dual-Core+T4300+%40+2.10GHz

.. . . but given that Adobe appears to have moved development India, I doubt
the US managers know fully the technical details, like how it is compiled.

--g


From: Paul on 9 Aug 2010 23:28
geoff wrote:

>
> . . . but given that Adobe appears to have moved development India, I doubt
> the US managers know fully the technical details, like how it is compiled.
>
> --g

I'm sure they'll have code reviews. Adobe has a reputation to maintain.

Paul





First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: You can get Internet from a USB port, can you get TV
Next: What if I screw up???