Multitasking Content Creation

MCC Winstone 2004

Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 tests the following applications in various usage scenarios:

. Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1
. Adobe® Premiere® 6.50
. Macromedia® Director MX 9.0
. Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1
. Microsoft® Windows MediaTM Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980
. NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b
. SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f

As you can see above, Lightwave is part of the MCC Winstone 2004 benchmark suite. As an individual application, Lightwave does manage to get a healthy performance benefit with multithreaded rendering enabled, especially when paired with Hyperthreading enabled CPUs like the Pentium 4s here today. All chips were tested with Lightwave set to spawn 4 threads.

Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004


ICC SYSMark 2004

The first category that we will deal with is 3D Content Creation. The tests that make up this benchmark are described below:
"The user renders a 3D model to a bitmap using 3ds max 5.1, while preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. Then the user renders a 3D animation in a vector graphics format."
3D Content Creation SYSMark 2004


Next, we have 2D Content Creation performance:
"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5."
2D Content Creation SYSMark 2004


The Internet Content Creation suite is rounded up with a Web Publishing performance test:
"The user extracts content from an archive using WinZip 8.1. Meanwhile, he uses Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics file. He modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final movie with the special effects is then compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 series in a format that can be broadcast over broadband Internet. The web site is given the final touches in Dreamweaver MX and the system is scanned by VirusScan 7.0."
Web Publication SYSMark 2004


Mozilla + Media Encoder

Multitasking: Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder


The Test and Business/General Use Performance Video Creation/Photo Editing
Comments Locked

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gatak - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link

    DRM!

    http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=49...

    Seems as the new Intel CPUs and Chiptsets are DRM enabled in hardware now!
  • Icehawk - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link

    There were some odd results IMO, at least one test were the 660 was faster than the 670. Eh?

    Remember the good old days when a processor that cost more and was rated higher was just plain faster? :D

    When is Anandtech going to update the version of ACDSee used? It is 2 versions old :(
  • The DvD - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link

    #28: Then you effectively reviewed the 945 board, and not the cpu. Because the 670 would only be 5.5% faster max. than the 660. Perhaps the graphs could be changed to say '670 (945)' for the new Intel combo.
  • RockHydra11 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    C'mon Intel. Exnay on the escotpre
  • yacoub - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    20 - Posted on May 26, 2005 at 8:33 PM by flatblastard Reply
    #10 "don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel"

    #13 Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"

    I am aware of this, and I will now make you aware of the fact that I can afford to have 10 less FPS.

    -------------
    Ah, so in that case you CERTAINLY wouldn't buy this more expensive 670 chip that doesn't even always outperform slower Intel ones.
  • DerekWilson - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    The 670 was the only board to use the 945 chipset and latest drivers from Intel. This could account for the odd Nero and Winzip numbers. I'm speaking more of the drivers than the hardware.

    Derek Wilson
  • mjz - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    #20.. I don't understand, why would you want to buy a CPU that is slower than a cheaper alternative.. That being, AMD. Faster, cheaper, why not?
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    23 - I'm almost positive that the 4000+ used was an older Sledgehammer core. As far as I know, no one at AnandTech has a San Diego yet.
  • Murst - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    I really don't understand why so many people complain/laugh at/question CPU releases. Everyone should be happy that another CPU is out on the market. The more are out there (especially of the upper end processors), the faster the price will drop.

    We'll have to wait and see if other sites get the same differences in the 6xx family before jumping to conclusions, but it sure does seem very strange....
  • Zebo - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    No X2 in there?

    Well I guess Intel has to win a couple benchmarks..and technically the X2 processor is'nt really "out" yet.:D

    But niether is 670...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now