The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review: Twelve Threads vs Four at $250
by Ian Cutress on April 11, 2017 9:00 AM ESTBenchmarking Performance: CPU Office Tests
The office programs we use for benchmarking aren't specific programs per-se, but industry standard tests that hold weight with professionals. The goal of these tests is to use an array of software and techniques that a typical office user might encounter, such as video conferencing, document editing, architectural modelling, and so on and so forth. At present we have two such tools to use.
PCMark8
Despite originally coming out in 2008/2009, Futuremark has maintained PCMark8 to remain relevant in 2017. On the scale of complicated tasks, PCMark focuses more on the low-to-mid range of professional workloads, making it a good indicator for what people consider 'office' work. We run the benchmark from the commandline in 'conventional' mode, meaning C++ over OpenCL, to remove the graphics card from the equation and focus purely on the CPU. PCMark8 offers Home, Work and Creative workloads, with some software tests shared and others unique to each benchmark set.
Chromium Compile (v56)
Our new compilation test uses Windows 10 Pro, VS Community 2015.3 with the Win10 SDK to combile a nightly build of Chromium. We've fixed the test for a build in late March 2017, and we run a fresh full compile in our test. Compilation is the typical example given of a variable threaded workload - some of the compile and linking is linear, whereas other parts are multithreaded.
SYSmark 2014 SE
SYSmark is developed by Bapco, a consortium of industry CPU companies. The goal of SYSmark is to take stripped down versions of popular software, such as Photoshop and Onenote, and measure how long it takes to process certain tasks within that software. The end result is a score for each of the three segments (Office, Media, Data) as well as an overall score. Here a reference system (Core i3-6100, 4GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Integrated HD 530 graphics) is used to provide a baseline score of 1000 in each test.
A note on contect for these numbers. AMD left Bapco in the last two years, due to differences of opinion on how the benchmarking suites were chosen and AMD believed the tests are angled towards Intel processors and had optimizations to show bigger differences than what AMD felt was present. The following benchmarks are provided as data, but the conflict of opinion between the two companies on the validity of the benchmark is provided as context for the following numbers.
254 Comments
View All Comments
Outlander_04 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
The information is out therehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VvwWTQKCZs
vladx - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
That wasn't my point, readers shouldn't go elsewhere to compare with CPUs that are excluded due to bias.Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
What relevance has a $340 CPU got to a $250 CPU review?vladx - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
I'd say a ton more than the $499 Ryzen 7 1800x which didn't get excluded.psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
Yes, it's in the same product line, so people can see how it compares.Which seems to be roughly around 80% of the 1800X, for around half the price.
vladx - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
And 7700k is more relevant for gaming which was the subject at hand so there you go.Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
You didn't answer my question...vladx - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
I just did, 7700k is more relevant than a 1800X in gaming benchmarks and as the competition it should've been included if a $499 CPU from AMD is included.psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
7700K is at a different price point, it rightly was compared in the Ryzen 7 reviews.Regardless, it would lose in the multithreaded benchmarks still, whilst having a small extra advantage in the gaming results.
vladx - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link
Ryzen 1800X is even more expensive than 7700k and yet got included in the gaming benchmarking, ironically considering 7700k is much more relevant for gaming.Sorry, but the bias and double standards are obvious in the article.