Legacy Benchmarks at 3 GHz

Some of our legacy benchmarks have followed AnandTech for over a decade, showing how performance changes when the code bases stay the same in that period. Some of this software is still in common use today.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

3D Particle Movement v1

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.

3D Particle Movement: Single Threaded

3D Particle Movement: MultiThreaded

We ran 3DPM v2 earlier in the review, and it showed significant gains for Carrizo when running software that is not competing for data in shared cache lines. This older version of that benchmark still has those 'base CS' flaws that a non-CompSci science student might make, and while Carrizo has a small gain in single threaded mode, moving to multithreaded puts some strain on the caches, resulting in lower performance.

Cinebench 11.5 and 10

Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.

Cinebench 11.5 - Single Threaded

Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded

Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

On the older versions of CineBench, like the newer ones, Carrizo has some notable microarchitectural advantages over Kaveri and previous versions of the Bulldozer microarchitecture.

POV-Ray 3.7

POV-Ray is a common ray-tracing tool used to generate realistic looking scenes. We've used POV-Ray in its various guises over the years as a good benchmark for performance, as well as a tool on the march to ray-tracing limited immersive environments. We use the built-in multithreaded benchmark.

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta RC4

For our base ray tracing benchmark in Windows, again Carrizo pulls out a lead. This time it's around 13% over Kaveri or 32% over Trinity/Richland.

TrueCrypt 7.1

Before its discontinuation, TrueCrypt was a popular tool for WindowsXP to offer software encryption to a file system. The version we use for our tests, 7.1, is still widely used however the developers have stopped supporting it since the introduction of encrypted disk support in Windows 8/7/Vista from 5/2014, and as such any new security issues are unfixed. The benchmark itself is a good representation of microarchitectural advantages for base encryption methods.

TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark (AES Performance)

The AES performance for Carrizo is notably above Trinity/Richland, and pulls a 12% gain over Kaveri as well.

x264 HD 3.0

Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.

x264 HD Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03

x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03

Using slightly older conversion tools shows that Carrizo and Kaveri, when the frames are small, are essentially neck and neck for performance (but still 20% over Trinity/Richland).

7-zip

7-Zip is a freeware compression/decompression tool that is widely deployed across the world. We run the included benchmark tool using a 50MB library and take the average of a set of fixed-time results.

7-zip Benchmark

The 2MB of L2 cache for Carrizo hurts here. It makes we wonder how much more performance a 4MB cache would provide.

Performance at 3 GHz: Linux Gaming at 3 GHz: Alien Isolation
Comments Locked

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • Chaser - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Yeah lets celebrate another year of 10 or so of AMD's paper launches of incredible CPUs. Bulldozer was awesome dude!
  • Dr. Swag - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Yes, the review is finally here! Yes!
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    A review for a chip nobody should buy, because it's much worse than Zen will be.
  • Laxaa - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I wish there was a AM3+ version of Zen for us stuck on that platform. I'm not that interessted in getting a new motherboard(perhaps I should have stuck with Intel instead)
  • Peichen - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    You should have stuck with Intel. I buy into AMD's upgrade CPU, motherboard at different time scheme and is now stuck with a hot old CPU and a quite new motherboard with unreliable RAID controller. Junk the whole system means I toss out a 1.5 years old motherboard. Upgrade the CPU means not much performance increase and when the board's RAID fail I will have to buy AMD again so I won't throw out a new CPU.

    I wish I pay slightly more for an i3 or i5 and have a reliable media/light-gaming system for 6 years without all the hassle.
  • just4U - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    well.. then you'd have been stuck with a socket 1156 cpu and no board to go with it.. Intel's gone thru what.. 5 socket changes during the last 6-7 years.. There's something to be said for throwing a 2009 cpu into a 2016 board, and it's easy enough to (at some point..) change over to one of their newer processors in that lineup.

    It's also a hit/miss on any hardware. While some go the distance lasting a long time .. other's fail and it's not exclusive to either platform. I use processors from both camps. +/- for both. Just depends what your using your system for and what your expecting to get out of it.
  • pats1111 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I don't know why you're whining about a 1.5 year old mainboard. Typically, your NORMAL computer enthusiast is upgrading everything every 2 to 3 years. You have the same issues with Intel, platform changes occur every 1.5 years, and you're stuck with your "old, hot" processor. Wake up and embrace the technological advancement in front of you...
  • Nagorak - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    What advancement?
  • artk2219 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    Ding ding ding, we have the real question. Sure skylake is faster than sandy bridge, but compared to the advancement that 4 years used to make in chip tech, its nothing. An average of 25% IPC increase, most of which you can get back by bumping the clocks 30%, which most sandy bridge chips would do easily. Granted with skylake chip is more efficient, with more features, and better a igp, and blah blah blah. But honestly, for most things you would never notice, and dont even get me started on how pointless DDR4 is currently. But even that atleast will mature with time, unfortunately I'm sure you'll need another new socket to really realize its benefits.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-r...

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-r...
  • wiboonsin - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    What a great blog. I like the way you see http://www.dicksrunningshop.com/ . Thank you!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now