Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
The lowest “K” model of the Intel Arrow Lake CPU family benefits, like its predecessors, from a large number of cores. Unlike them, it doesn’t have Hyper Threading, but it doesn’t lag behind compute-wise, and the Core Ultra 5 245K is more efficient. However, it’s not enough to rival the Ryzen 9000s. Not at high performance. In medium workloads, typical of gaming PCs, however, the situation turns around.
Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench)
Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Photoshop is 22.4.2.
Adobe Lightroom Classic
Test environment: With the settings above, we export 42 uncompressed .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos with a size of 20 Mpx. Then we create 1:1 previews from them, which also represent one of the most processor intensive tasks in Lightroom. The version of Adobe Lightroom Classic is 10.3.
- Contents
- Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in detail
- Methodology: performance tests
- Methodology: how we measure power draw
- Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
- Test setup
- 3DMark
- Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
- Borderlands 3
- Counter-Strike: GO
- Cyberpunk 2077
- DOOM Eternal
- F1 2020
- Metro Exodus
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Shadow of the Tomb Raider
- Total War Saga: Troy
- Overall gaming performance
- Gaming performance per euro
- PCMark and Geekbench
- Web performance
- 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
- Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
- Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
- Visual effects: Adobe After Effects
- Video encoding
- Audio encoding
- Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
- Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
- Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI Apps, ZPS X, ...
- (De)compression
- (De)encryption
- Numerical computing
- Simulations
- Memory and cache tests
- Processor power draw curve
- Average processor power draw
- Performance per watt
- Achieved CPU clock speed
- CPU temperature
- Conclusion
Any thoughts why the idle power consumption of ryzen 9600 and 9700 is so different? I’d expect these to be essentially the same–both contain the same chiplets, and when idling, I’d expect only 1-2 cores to be active…
Something to do with silicon lottery?
Very good logical reasoning. The difference in power consumption between the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X should be really minimal taking into account the structure of both processors. Especially when they are tested on the same motherboard with the same power management setup. For more details, we went to the HWiNFO log, where the 9700X is even shaping up to be the lower-power CPU (~22.1 vs. ~23.9 W). This also makes sense considering the slightly higher core clock speeds and their power supply voltages in the R5 9600X, for example. However, we do not consider software monitoring to be relevant and transparent enough in CPU tests. Hence those measurements on EPS cables, where the results already fundamentally diverge. I can’t tell you the reason, it’s hard to say. Considering that both processors have only one chiplet with cores active and the difference is on the level of activity of two cores, I would also expect the values of the power consumption results to be close to each other.
It’s the same with other processors.
Intel Core i5-13400F (C0): 2.1W
Intel Core i5-14400F (C0): 10.97W
Pretty much same CPU, 5x~ difference?
Intel Core i3-13100F: 2.57W
Intel Core i3-12100F: 16.75W
Same as above
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: 17.37W
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: 22.42W
Same generation, but the one with more cores uses less power in idle?
12400F higher than 12900K and same as 7800X3D which famously has high idle power?
Something doesn’t seem right with any of the numbers in the idle power tests. Were the conditions identical?
There may be more reasons, but I don’t want to speculate too much. It’s too complicated for that. Anyway, in the specified idle load the multiplier of the Core i5-13400F on P cores drops down to 4, while the Core i5-14400F’s is, I think, at 8. And I guess the management of the cores can be different, where only in one case the OS runs on the efficient (E) ones. I don’t know, I wouldn’t dig too much into it like this, we don’t like to speculate and we like to have clarity on things. With processors you can’t always do that, because we can’t see inside them well enough. It simply works out this way in this particular situation, and it is certainly correct.
I certainly wouldn’t blame it on silicon lottery. Most people may be inclined to do so, but it is important to know that with the extremely low power consumption claimed for the Ci5-13400F (C0), the measurements of another sample of this processor – the Ci5-13400F (B0) – also scale well.