-
Network and storage speeds also irrelevant in this case, even loading and saving is CPU-bound.
Since 2005 CPU and memory speeds haven't improved: https://colin-scott.github.io/personal_website/research/interactive_latency.html
What's improved have been storage speeds (SSDs got faster, SSDs replaced HDDs) and networking speeds.
The only big difference on a CPU has been the number of physical cores provided.*
We've gone from Moore's law to Amdahl's law.
* And heterogeneous CPUs with mixed types of cores making "a core" (almost all recent Intel, AMD, and ARM designed chips like the M1) and also shared virtual memory which allows a single piece of on-processor memory to be exposed to multiple processing units (i.e. certain Intels, AMD Ryzen, Apple M1).
Velocio-
Adobe doesn't know.
-
The only big difference on a CPU has been the number of physical cores provided.*
That's contradicted by your 5950x being significantly faster than it's immediate predecessor despite an identical number of cores and very similar clock speeds...
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_9_5950x-1749-vs-amd_ryzen_9_3950x-932
Any list of single-thread benchmarks will show similar generational improvements.
If single-core performance wasn't increasing there'd be less incentive for me to upgrade, but I got a 50% increase going from 9th to 12th gen i9.
sohi
Brun
That list is very dependent on application. Currently using a 24 core 3960X with 128GB RAM for work (3D modelling) and it's about half as fast as my i9/32GB. Even a new i5 would be significantly quicker. Network and storage speeds also irrelevant in this case, even loading and saving is CPU-bound.