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 modeling, and so on and so forth.

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

Chromium Compile (v56)

Our new compilation test uses Windows 10 Pro, VS Community 2015.3 with the Win10 SDK to compile 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.

For our test, we compile a version of v56 under MSVC and report the time in 'Compiles per Day', a more scalable metric to represent over time. Other publications might perfom this test differently (Ars Technica uses a clang-cl compiler with VC++ linking, for example).

Office: Chromium Compile (v56)

One of the interesting data points in our test is the Compile. Because this test requires a lot of cross-core communication and DRAM, we get an interesting metric where the 1950X still comes out on top due to the core counts, but because the 1920X has fewer cores per CCX, it actually falls behind the 1950X in Game Mode and the 1800X despite having more cores. 

PCMark8: link

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.

Office: PCMark8 Home (non-OpenCL)

Office: PCMark8 Work (non-OpenCL)

Strangely, PCMark 8's Creative test seems to be failing across the board. We're trying to narrow down the issue.

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
Comments Locked

104 Comments

View All Comments

  • peevee - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Compilation scales even on multi-CPU machines. With much higher communication latencies.
    In general, compilers running in parallel on MSVC (with MSBuild) run in different processes, they don't write into each other's address spaces and so do not need to communicate at all.

    Quit making excuses. You are doing something wrong. I am doing development for multi-CPU machines and ON multi-CPU machines for a very long time. YOU are doing something wrong.
  • peevee - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    BTW, when you enable NUMA on TR, does Windows 10 recognize it as one CPU group or 2?
  • gzunk - Saturday, August 19, 2017 - link

    It recognizes it as two NUMA nodes.
  • Alexey291 - Saturday, September 2, 2017 - link

    They aren't going to do anything.

    All their 'scientific benchmarking' is running the same macro again and again on different hardware setups.

    What you are suggesting requires actual work and thought.
  • Arbie - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    As noted by edzieba, the correct phrase (and I'm sure it has a very British heritage) is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

    Another phrase needing repair: "multithreaded tests were almost halved to the 1950X". Was this meant to be something like "multithreaded tests were almost half of those in Creator mode" (?).

    Technically, of course, your articles are really well-done; thanks for all of them.
  • fanofanand - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    Thank you for listening to the readers and re-testing this, Ian!
  • ddriver - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    To sum it up - "game mode" is moronic. It is moronic for amd to push it, and to push TR as a gaming platform, which is clearly neither its peak, nor even its strong point. It is even more moronic for people to spend more than double the money just to have half of the CPU disabled, and still get worse performance than a ryzen chip.

    TR is great for prosumers, and represents a tremendous value and performance at a whole new level of affordability. It will do for games if you are a prosumer who occasionally games, but if you are a gamer it makes zero sense. Having AMD push it as a gaming platform only gives "people" the excuse to whine how bad it is at it.

    Also, I cannot shake the feeling there should be a better way to limit scheduling to half the chip for games without having to disable the rest, so it is still usable to the rest of the system.
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    first coders should do their job.. that is the main problem today. lazy and uncompetent coders.
  • eriohl - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    Of course you could limit thread scheduling on software level. But it seems to me that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation why Microsoft and the game developers haven't been spending much time optimizing for running games on systems with NUMA.
  • HomeworldFound - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    You can't call a coder that doesn't anticipate a 16 core 32 thread CPU lazy. The word is incompetent btw. I'd like to see you make a game worth millions of dollars and account for this processor, heck any processor with more than six cores.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now