Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/1759
Article Thumbnail

Photoshop CPU performance: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen

Written on May 20, 2020 by Matt Bach

TL;DR: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen for Photoshop

In Adobe Photoshop, most of the new Intel 10th Gen processors - such as the Core i7 10700K and i5 10600K - should perform about on par with an equivalently priced AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processor. This means that if you are looking to spend around $400 or less on your CPU, you can go with either Intel or AMD and you likely won't be able to tell the difference in Photoshop.

If you have a bit more of a budget, however, the Intel Core i9 10900K is around 10% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, or the more expensive 3950X. In fact, it is currently the fastest processor available for Photoshop regardless of your budget which is going to make it a popular option for use in a Photoshop workstation.


Over the last few years, AMD has been making great strides with their Ryzen and Threadripper processors, often matching - or beating - the performance from similarly priced Intel options. In fact, with the release of AMD's 3rd Gen Ryzen processors back in July 2019, AMD was able to take a slight lead over Intel in terms of Photoshop performance for the first time in recent memory.

However, with the launch of Intel's new 10th Gen desktop processors, it is very likely that Intel will retake the performance crown in lightly threaded applications like Photoshop since Intel only needs a minor improvement in performance to allow them to overtake AMD. The question is whether the performance gains will be enough to make Intel significantly faster than AMD, or if it will only be enough for AMD and Intel to perform on par with each other.

Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen for Adobe Photoshop

In this article, we will be examining the performance of the new Intel 10th Gen Core i9 10900K, i7 10700K, and i5 10600K in Photoshop compared to a range of CPUs including the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, Intel X-10000 Series, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, as well as the previous generation Intel 9th Gen processors. In addition, we will be including a 2019 Mac Pro and iMac Pro to act as additional reference points. If you are interested in how these processors compare in other applications, we also have other articles for Premiere Pro, After Effects, Lightroom Classic, and several other applications available on our article listing page.

If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion.

Looking for a Photoshop Workstation?

Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!

Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!

Test Setup

Listed below are the specifications of the systems we will be using for our testing:

Intel 10th Gen Test Platform
CPU Intel Core i9 10900K ($488)
Intel Core i7 10700K ($374)
Intel Core i5 10600K ($262)
CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U12S
Motherboard Gigabyte Z490 Vision D
RAM 4x DDR4-2933 16GB (64GB total)
(Set to 2666MHz for 10600K testing)
AMD Ryzen Test Platform

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X ($749)
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X ($499)

CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U12S
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 AORUS ULTRA
RAM 4x DDR4-2933 16GB (64GB total)
Intel 9th Gen Test Platform

Intel Core i9 9900K ($488)
Intel Core i7 9700K ($374)

CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U12S
Motherboard Gigabyte Z390 Designare
RAM 4x DDR4-2666 16GB (64GB total)
AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen Test Platform
CPU AMD TR 3990X ($3,990)
AMD TR 3970X ($1,999)
AMD TR 3960X ($1,399)
CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3
Motherboard Gigabyte TRX40 AORUS PRO WIFI
RAM 4x DDR4-2933 16GB (64GB total)
Intel X-10000 Series Test Platform
CPU Intel Core i9 10980XE ($979)
Intel Core i9 10940X ($784)
Intel Core i9 10920X ($689)
Intel Core i9 10900X ($590)
CPU Cooler Noctua NH-U12DX i4
Motherboard Gigabyte X299 Designare EX
RAM 4x DDR4-2933 16GB (64GB total)
Shared PC Hardware/Software
Video Card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB
Hard Drive Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (version 1909)
Mac Pro (2019) iMac Pro
CPU 28‑core Intel Xeon W 2.5GHz 14-core Intel Xeon W 2.5GHz
Video Card Radeon Pro Vega II Duo 2x32GB Radeon Pro Vega 64 16GB
Hard Drive 1TB SSD storage 1TB SSD
OS Mac OS X (10.15.4)
Current Price $19,599 $7,549

*All the latest drivers, OS updates, BIOS, and firmware applied as of March 30th, 2020

In order to see how each of these configurations performs in Photoshop, we will be using our PugetBench for Photoshop V0.9 benchmark and Photoshop 2020 (21.1.1). This benchmark version includes the ability to upload the results to our online database, so if you want to know how your own system compares, you can download and run the benchmark yourself.

One thing we do want to note is that due to COVID-19 impacting access to our testing hardware and platforms, we are reusing the Intel X-series, AMD Threadripper, and Mac results from our previous Photoshop article: Photoshop performance: PC Workstation vs Mac Pro (2019). Reusing old results is actually extremely common for hardware reviews, although we normally re-do all our testing to see if newer BIOS, driver, Windows update, and application versions change the results. In this case, however, we are going to simply have to be OK with a bit of a mix of old and new results.

We also found that the pre-launch motherboards we received from Gigabyte (and multiple other manufacturers) were not using Intel's specified power limits in their default BIOS settings. This isn't anything new, but now that Intel is being more aggressive about adding cores and pushing the frequency, this is resulting in much higher power draw (and heat) than you would expect from a 125W processor - often resulting in 100c temperatures after only a few seconds of load. Because of this, we decided to manually set the PL1 and PL2 power limits in the BIOS. We used a value of 125W for the PL1 setting on all three Intel 10th Gen CPUs we tested along with the following PL2 limits according to Intel's specifications:

  • Core i9 10900K: 250W
  • Core i7 10700K: 229W
  • Core i5 10600K: 182W

Setting these power limits made our Noctua NH-U12S more than enough to keep these CPUs properly cooled and helps match our philosophy here at Puget Systems of prioritizing stability and reliability over raw performance in our workstations.

Benchmark Results

While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each test, we also like to provide the individual results for you to examine. If there is a specific task that is a hindrance to your workflow, examining the raw results for that task is going to be much more applicable than the scores that our benchmark calculated.

Feel free to skip to the next sections for our analysis of these results to get a wider view of how each configuration performs in Photoshop.

Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen Photoshop Benchmark Results

Benchmark Analysis: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen

To start off our analysis of the Intel 10th Gen desktop processors, we are first going to look at the performance in Photoshop versus AMD's 3rd Gen Ryzen processors. This is likely to be what the majority of readers are going to be interested in, so we decided to pull these results out from the full slew of results that are in the next section.

Since Photoshop doesn't scale particularly well with a higher number of CPU cores, you generally don't see much of a performance difference once you get to around the AMD Ryzen 7 or Intel Core i7 level since those CPUs tend to have similar single-core boost performance. But with the new 10th Gen CPUs, Intel has once again made a firm claim the top performance spot with the Intel Core i9 10900K coming in at about 8% faster than the similarly priced AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, or 6% faster than the more expensive AMD Ryzen 9 3950X.

At the sub-$400 price point, however, both the Intel Core i7 10700K and the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X perform within a few percent of each other. Unfortunately, we did not have an AMD Ryzen 5 3600X to use as a comparison for the Core i5 10600K, although based on the results that have been uploaded to our PugetBench results database, we suspect that these two CPUs would likewise trade performance blows in Photoshop.

What this means is that while the Intel Core i9 10900K takes the top performance spot for Photoshop, if you have a more modest budget you likely won't notice much of a difference between an Intel 10th Gen or an AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processor.

How does Intel 10th Gen stack up overall?

Looking at how the Intel 10th Gen processors compare against a wider range of CPUs, there are a couple of key points we want to note:

First, compared to the previous 9th Gen processors, we are looking at about a 5-10% performance gain with the new 10th Gen models. This may not be all that exciting, but this is fairly typical for CPU launches from Intel over the last few years.

Next, relative to the new Intel Core i9 10900K, the Intel X-10000 Series and AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen processors are in general about 10-15% slower in Photoshop. Depending on your workflow, an Intel X-series or AMD Threadripper CPU may still be the right option for you, but just be aware that if Photoshop performance is a significant bottleneck for your work, you may want to opt for the much less expensive Core i9 10900K over a more expensive option.

Lastly, compared to the Apple iMac Pro and Mac Pro systems we tested, we saw about 15% higher performance in Photoshop with our Core i9 10900K test configuration.

Is the Intel Core 10th Gen or AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen better for Photoshop?

Between the Intel 10th Gen and AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs, Intel has a firm lead at the high-end with the Core i9 10900K outperforming the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X by about 8%. At the low/mid-range, however, you are unlikely to notice much of a difference between a comparably priced Intel and AMD processor.

Overall, this makes the Intel Core i9 10900K our new go-to CPU recommendation for Photoshop. In an application where there is often only a minor difference between a $350 CPU and a $4,000 one, the Core i9 10900K is a rare example of a processor that is significantly faster than the other options that are currently available.

Keep in mind that the benchmark results in this article are strictly for Photoshop and that performance will vary widely in different applications. If your workflow includes other software packages (we have similar articles for Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Lightroom Classic), you need to consider how the system will perform in those applications as well. Be sure to check our list of Hardware Articles to keep up to date on how all of these software packages (and more) perform with the latest CPUs.

Looking for a Photoshop Workstation?

Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!

Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!
Tags: Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series, AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, Intel X-10000, Photoshop, Apple Mac Pro, Apple iMac Pro, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, Intel 10th Gen, i9 10900K, i7 10700K, i5 10600K

Thanks for another great analysis! One aspect that I've not seen measured is power efficiency. With performance deltas as small as they are here, it would be really interesting to see how much power is used to get these numbers. From what I've seen from (an admittedly superficial) reading of reviews, it would appear that the 10th Intel parts are getting this performance with higher power draw than their AMD counterparts. Seeing as how energy cost over time should impact the cost/performance tradeoff, knowing this would be useful.

Posted on 2020-05-26 17:46:42

Power draw is something we rarely (if ever) get asked about by our customers purchasing workstations, which is why we rarely look at it in these kinds of articles. More often, noise is the concern, but with proper cooling setups it is rarely an issue regardless of what CPU/platform they end up going with.

It is also a pretty complicated subject when looking at real-world performance. Do we use the peak power draw (since it fluctuates based on what you are doing), or try to separate it out by task since what one person does is different from another person (which sounds really complicated)? Or if we do it in terms of KW/hr, do we care about how much power it takes to do complete a task like an export (which changes based on the performance of the system), or something like live playback in Premiere Pro which is essentially a fixed time with variable FPS performance?

If we had customers where this was a concern, we would figure out some way to do that testing, but for now, we just refer anyone who wants to know that kind of information to the excellent reviews from Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc.

Posted on 2020-05-26 17:55:50

Thanks for the response -- if the empirical evidence is that customers in general aren't too concerned with this, then it makes little sense to spend effort in measuring it :)

Posted on 2020-05-26 18:00:37

I find it interesting. It would be cool to have a power meter running during the presumably scripted benchmarks and measure how many watt hours it uses in that period.

Posted on 2020-09-07 07:09:26
David Alexander Cárdenas Bilel

So, would you say the 10900k is worth the $200 premium over the 3900x? I've been thinking about upgrading from an overclocked 4770k (can only go to 4.1ghz) and mostly use my system for drawing with PS.

Posted on 2020-06-11 21:51:38

fuck no it isn't

Posted on 2020-06-12 18:16:37
Mark Harris

is not for you, as a blind fanboy, for rational people it can surely be.

Posted on 2020-07-06 23:45:52
Mark Harris

If you want the best Photoshop performance, no silly ram compatibility issues, and also do gaming, then it is surely worth it. Specially if your gaming is higher frame rate competitive like CSGO.

Posted on 2020-07-06 23:46:54
David Alexander Cárdenas Bilel

I’m not sure what exactly you’re getting at with the RAM compatibility issues and bad gaming performance- I ended up going with the 3900x because of availability, price to performance and necessity. I’m really quite blown away by the Ryzen CPU! It performs excellently in Photoshop, my games run better and I can multitask much more effectively. I’m running 64GB of RAM at 3600mhz and everything works fine!

Posted on 2020-07-15 13:32:01

It's more than that once you factor in the mother board cost unfortunately.

Posted on 2020-07-14 20:16:44
Mark Harris

Am I supposed to reset photoshop to defaults before running the benchmark? Cause my score was supposed to be higher than your stock 9900k and it was actually lower.

Posted on 2020-07-07 14:31:51

You shouldn't need to (the benchmark should set anything it needs), but there is always the chance that you have something like GPU acceleration disabled or something like that that is causing lower than expected performance. So resetting preferences is a good troubleshooting step. If you don't want to lose all your preferences, you can back them up first either manually or with a little utility we made: http://puget.systems/go/Pug...

If the performance is still low, it could be almost anything: old drivers/Windows updates, an issue with the install of Photoshop, or a problem with the system that is causing lower performance.

Posted on 2020-07-07 16:00:53
Mark Harris

awesome utility! I will back it up and try again. Thanks!

Posted on 2020-07-07 17:00:21
Benjamin Noblitt

Any word on how the 10900K performs using Photomerge for panoramic images? Also, does anyone know how well these CPUs do with the statistics functions? I primarily do a lot of focus stacking in Helicon Focus (which supposedly can fully utilize multiple cores) as well as photo merging for very large panoramic images (300 or more megapixels), hence my question. I also use a lot of statistics functions (mean/median) as well and wish I knew how they would handle multiple cores vs clock speed.

Posted on 2020-08-14 04:52:21

Happy new year ! I want to upgrade my desktop computer and i choosed between the I5 10400 F & i7 10700 F .
is it worth spending about 300 € more for the I7 for only 10 % better results ?!I

Posted on 2021-01-01 12:42:10