Adobe Photoshop: AMD Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series vs Intel Xeon W-3400

Introduction

Since Adobe Photoshop is a fairly lightly threaded application, AMD’s new Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series (with up to 96 cores!) is, in many ways, the opposite type of CPU you would ideally want to use. While the per-core performance on modern Threadripper processors has been significantly improved compared to previous generations, a consumer-class CPU like AMD Ryzen or Intel Core will typically give you better performance – and at a fraction of the cost.

However, Photoshop is ubiquitous in the content creation industry and is commonly used alongside heavier applications like Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and After Effects, where either the raw horsepower or feature set of Threadripper PRO can be useful. Because of this, while few people will consider Threadripper PRO for Photoshop by itself, it is still beneficial to know how it performs, as it can impact your overall workflow.

With their “7000” series of processors, it is important to be aware that AMD has split their high core-count CPUs into two separate product families: the High-End Desktop (HEDT) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Series, and the even higher tier AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series processors. Both are based on AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, which means they now support new technologies like PCI-e Gen 5.0 and DDR5 memory, but the “PRO” line includes twice the number of memory lanes (8 channel vs 4 channel) and more than twice the number of PCIe lanes (128 vs 48). In addition, the higher line also includes a 96-core processor for those workloads that benefit from having a massive number of CPU cores.

However, none of these features should impact Photoshop, so we don’t expect to see anything significantly different with the Threadripper PRO 7000WX processors than we did in our recent review of the Threadripper 7000 line. With that said, we have a dedicated AMD Threadripper 7000 vs. Threadripper PRO 7000WX for Content Creation article if you want to see exactly where (and by how much) it may make sense to invest in the PRO line. But in this article, we want to focus on the performance of the Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series compared to the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5000WX and the Intel Xeon W-2400/3400 line. In addition to Threadripper PRO and Xeon, we will include the Intel Core 14900K to provide some context for how AMD Threadripper PRO compares to a more typical CPU choice for this type of workload.

Because there are so many CPUs to examine, we will break our analysis down into Intel vs AMD (AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX vs Intel Xeon W-3400) and performance versus the previous generation (AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX vs AMD Threadripper PRO 5000WX)

To learn more about how the new AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series processors perform in other workflows, we have compiled an overview in our AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7000WX Content Creation Review article. That post also includes more detailed information on the CPU specifications and test results for various applications: Premiere Pro, Lightroom Classic, DaVinci Resolve, After Effects, Unreal Engine, Cinema 4D, Blender, and V-Ray.

In addition, although all the new AMD CPUs have a TDP of 350 W, TDP is rarely the whole story. To see how much power these chips use to complete tasks, check out our Power Analysis: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 article. That is specifically looking at the non-Pro models, but both Threadripper lines have the same power draw and can be considered interchangeable regarding CPU power draw and cooling.

Raw Benchmark Data

We design our benchmarks to cover many workflows and tasks to provide a balanced look at the application and its hardware interactions. However, many users have more specialized workflows. Recognizing this, we like to provide individual results for benchmarks as well. If a specific area comprises most of your work, examining those results will give a more accurate understanding of the performance disparities between components.

AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX vs Intel Xeon W-3400 for Adobe Photoshop

Since most tasks in Photoshop are lightly threaded, performance is based mainly on the per-core performance of your CPU. Because of this, you tend not to see much difference between CPUs of the same family, and consumer CPU lines like Intel Core or AMD Ryzen are often faster than processor families like Threadripper PRO and Xeon. In addition, lower core count processors can be a bit faster than the ones with more cores, as shown in the chart above, where you progressively see lower and lower performance as you go up in core count with the new Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series.

This means that CPUs like Intel Core and AMD Ryzen are simply a better fit for Photoshop, giving you more performance at a significantly lower cost. Still, given how many workflows utilize Photoshop to some degree, there are many use cases where a user may opt to take a performance hit in Photoshop to get better performance in other aspects of their workflow. For example, this is very common in the VFX industry, where rendering or simulation benefits from high CPU core counts, and the work being done in Photoshop is relatively light.

Keeping all this in mind, we will focus on price comparisons between AMD and Intel with the understanding that as we go up the product stack, absolute performance will slowly drop.

Starting with the fastest Threadripper PRO 7000 CPU we tested, the Threadripper PRO 7965WX 24-core is a bit more expensive than the Intel Xeon w7-2495X 24-core, but scores an impressive 24% higher in our Photoshop benchmark. The Threadripper PRO 7975WX 32-core is even better, beating the Intel Xeon w7-3475X 36-core by about 31%. This isn’t entirely fair for Intel since the 36-core gives particularly bad results in Photoshop (worse than any other the CPUs we tested), but if we look at this from the perspective of Photoshop being a secondary workload, it is still a big win for AMD.

At the upper end of the product stack, the Threadripper PRO 7985WX 64-core and 7995WX 96-core both take a bit of a performance hit, coming in at about 7% slower than the 24/32 core models. Both are also priced well above any Intel Xeon W-3400 processor, with the closest comparison being the Xeon w9-3495X 56-core at $5,900. That is still a $1,450 premium for the 7985WX 64-core ($7,350 vs $5,900) and a $4,000 premium for the 7995WX 96-core ($10,000 vs $5,900). These two CPUs perform about the same and come in at about 15% faster than the Intel Xeon w9-3495X.

AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX vs AMD Threadripper PRO 5000WX for Adobe Photoshop

When comparing the new AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX CPUs to the previous generation, you need to be aware that AMD introduced a price increase in this generation. The exact amount varies, but ranges from $250 with the 24-core models, to $600 with the 32-core, and $850 with the 64-core. In addition, the 96-core is priced well above anything from the previous generation. Even with this price increase, a core-to-core comparison is the closest we can do from a price perspective; remember that the gen-to-gen performance gain needs to be enough to overcome the price increases with this generation.

Starting at the lower end, the new Threadripper PRO 7965WX 24-core is (as we mentioned) $250 more expensive than the Threadripper PRO 5965WX 24-core, but performs about 9% higher. This is about the same performance gain as the price increase, which makes it a very neutral upgrade.

Moving up one level to the Threadripper PRO 7975WX 32-core, it is about $600 (or 15%) more expensive than the Threadripper PRO 5975WX 32-core, and comes in at about 11% faster in Photoshop. It is not particularly significant, but it is worth keeping in mind that Photoshop may be the worst-case application for a CPU family like Threadripper PRO, so while accurate for Photoshop, it is not an indication of these new processors.

As we explained in the previous section, the 64-core Threadripper PRO 7985WX and 96-core Threadripper PRO 7995WX are a bit slower than the 24- and 32-core models, in part because lightly threaded applications tend to have problems with CPUs that have more than 32 cores. However, it is worth pointing out that the new 7985WX and 7995WX don’t seem to be impacted nearly as much as the previous generation. The 24-core 7965WX will still be faster, but only to the tune of ~10%. For reference, the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5965WX 24-core was around 18% faster than the 64-core 5995WX. Because of this improvement, it makes the new 7985WX and 7995WX about 17-20% faster than the 5995WX.

How Well Do the AMD Threadripper PRO 7000WX CPUs Perform in Photoshop?

In many ways, Adobe Photoshop is among the worst applications for high-core count processors like AMD Threadripper PRO or Intel Xeon W since it is lightly threaded and doesn’t benefit from the extra memory bandwidth or PCIe lanes. In fact, if performance in Photoshop is your primary concern, an Intel Core or AMD Ryzen CPU will give you more performance at a significantly lower price. In addition, Photoshop tends to show performance degradation when you get above the 32-core mark, which makes the new $10,000 96-core Threadripper PRO 7995WX a particularly poor fit.

However, Photoshop is perhaps one of the most common “secondary” applications within the content creation industry, making it useful to know (at least tangentially) how different processors compare. If you have a workflow that can benefit from the high core count, 8-channel RAM, or 128 PCIe lanes that the Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series provide, these new CPUs will do the job just fine for the Photoshop portion of your workflow, and offer around 10% higher performance than the previous generation Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series.

Compared to the Intel Xeon W-3400 processor line, AMD has a firm lead in Photoshop, although the exact amount is tough to quantify since it depends on whether or not you include particularly bad results from CPUs like the Intel Xeon w9-3475X 36-core. The most straightforward comparison is with the 24-core models, where the Threadripper PRO 7965WX is about 25% faster than the Intel Xeon w7-2495X.

For most users, neither Threadripper PRO nor Intel Xeon W is the right processor line for Photoshop. Even if you need more RAM or PCIe lanes than you could get with a more affordable (and faster) CPU like an Intel Core i9-14900K, the normal AMD Threadripper 7000 processors are just as fast as the PRO models (as we show in our AMD Threadripper 7000 vs Threadripper PRO 7000WX for Content Creation article). But, if your overall workflows benefit from the 8-channel memory or 128 PCIe lanes that Threadripper PRO offers, the new Threadripper 7975WX and 7965WX are within 14% of the performance of the Intel Core i9 14900K. That is a small enough difference that it would be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, which will help with workflows that combine Photoshop with heavier applications that can benefit from all these CPU cores.

Every application uniquely utilizes hardware, so our results here don’t necessarily translate to any other application. Our focus in this article centers specifically on Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series performance in Adobe Lightroom Classic. However, we recommend checking out our AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7000 WX-Series Content Creation Review article, which includes a broad overview of results for several different applications. If you use other software packages, it also has links to our in-depth testing articles for content creation: Lightroom Classic, Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, After Effects, Unreal Engine, Cinema 4D, Blender, and V-Ray.

---

Finding the perfect workstation doesn’t have to be complicated. Explore our solutions page for a curated selection of recommended systems for a multitude of applications and workflows, or visit our custom configuration page if you already know the ideal hardware for your needs. If you need assistance with tailoring a system to a unique workflow or have any other questions, we encourage you to reach out to our dedicated technology consultants.