Benchmark Overview

For our testing we had each of the laptops at the same time for the best part of a workweek, alongside meetings with AMD to discuss the microarchitecture and platform positioning. Each system was purged into a fresh OS state, and then we applied a high profile performance state for the benchmarking in the air-conditioned lab.

The benchmarks fall into several areas:

Short Form CPU

Our short form testing script uses a straight run through of a mixture of known apps or workloads, and requires about four hours.

CPU Short Form Benchmarks
Three Dimensional Particle Movement (3DPM) 3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, derived from my academic research years looking at particle movement parallelism. The coding for this tool was rough, but emulates the real world in being non-CompSci trained code for a scientific endeavor. The code is unoptimized, but the test uses OpenMP to move particles around a field using one of six 3D movement algorithms in turn, each of which is found in the academic literature. This test is performed in single thread and multithreaded workloads, and uses purely floating point numbers. The code was written in Visual Studio 2008 in Release mode with all optimizations (including fast math and -Ox) enabled. We take the average of six runs in each instance.
WinRAR 5.01 WinRAR is a compression based software to reduce file size at the expense of CPU cycles. We use the version that has been a stable part of our benchmark database through 2015, and run the default settings on a 1.52GB directory containing over 2800 files representing a small website with around thirty half-minute videos. We take the average of several runs in this instance.
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 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.
HandBrake  HandBrake is a freeware video conversion tool. We use the tool in to process two different videos - first a 'low quality' two hour video at 640x388 resolution to x264, then a 'high quality' ten minute video at 4320x3840. The low quality video scales at lower performance hardware, whereas the buffers required for high-quality can stretch even the biggest processors. At current, this is a CPU only test.
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.

Web and Synthetic

The web tests are a usual mix of Octane/Kraken with WebXPRT in the mix. Synthetic CPU testing relates to our long term data under CineBench and x264.

Web and Synthetic Benchmarks
Google Octane 2.0 Lots of factors go into web development, including the tools used and the browser those tools play in. One of the common and widely used benchmarks to judge performance is Google Octane, now in version 2.0. To quote: 'The updated Octane 2.0 benchmark includes four new tests to measure new aspects of JavaScript performance, including garbage collection / compiler latency and asm.js-style JavaScript performance.'
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 Kraken is a similar tool to Google, focusing on web tools and processing power. Kraken's tools include searching algorithms, audio processing, image filtering, flexible database parsing and cryptographic routines.
WebXPRT 2013/2015 WebXPRT aims to be a souped up version of Octane and Kraken, using these tools in real time to display data in photograph enhancement, sorting, stock options, local storage manipulation, graphical enterfaces and even filtering algorithms on scientific datasets. We run the 2013 and 2015 versions of the benchmark.
Cinebench 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 due to our back data.
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 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.

Professional and OpenCL

Our professional tests involve a synthetic workload (PCMark), a 2D to 3D image and model conversion tool used by archivists and modelers (Agisoft in CPU only and OpenCL mode) as well as Linux Bench. Unfortunately Linux Bench only seemed to work on a pair of systems.

Professional and OpenCL Benchmarks
PCMark08 PCMark08, developed by Futuremark, is a simple press play and run benchmarking tool designed to probe how well systems cope with a variety of standard tasks that a professional user might encounter. This includes video conferencing with multiple streams, image/file manipulation, video processing, 3D modelling and other tools. In this case we take the three main benchmark sets, Creative, Home and Work, and run them in OpenCL mode which aims to take advantage of OpenCL accelerated hardware. For fun we also put in the PCMark08 Storage workset.
Agisoft Photoscan Photoscan is professional software that takes a series of 2D images (as little as 50, usually 250+) and 'performs calculations' to determine where the pictures were taken and if it can create a 3D model and textures of what the images are of. This model can then be exported to other software for touch-ups or implementation in physics engines/games or, as the reader that directed me to it, national archiving. The tool has four phases, one of which can be OpenCL accelerated, while the other three are a mix of single thread and variable thread workloads. We ran the tool in CPU only and OpenCL modes.
Linux Bench Linux Bench is a collection of Linux based benchmarks compiled together by ServeTheHome. The idea for this is to have some non-windows based tools that are easy enough to run with a USB key, an internet connection and three lines of code in a terminal. The tests in Linux Bench include standard synthetic compute, compression, matrix manipulation, database tools and key-value storage.

Gaming (3DMark, Rocket League)

Due to timing we were only able to run a couple of gaming tests, namely parts of the 3DMark suite and our Rocket League test.

Gaming Benchmarks
3DMark 3DMark is Futuremark's premium software, developed to tax systems at various different performance levels. The software contains several benchmarks as a result, with some focusing more on smartphone use all the way up to 4K, quad-SLI systems with as many in-game and post processing effects as you can throw at it. The base test, Ice Storm, is actually a good indicator of GPU scaling performance, but we also test Cloud Gate, Sky Diver and Fire Strike to get a measure of all of our systems.
Rocket League Hilariously simple pick-up-and-play games are great fun. I'm a massive fan of the Katamari franchise for that reason — passing start on a controller and rolling around, picking up things to get bigger, is extremely simple. Rocket League combines the elements of pick-up-and-play, allowing users to jump into a game with other people (or bots) to play football with cars with zero rules. The title is built on Unreal Engine 3 and it allows users to run the game on super-low-end systems while still taxing the big ones.

Power and Performance Testing

A portion of our benchmarks were profiled for performance – namely their effect on CPU temperature, frequency and usage – which we will go in to detail over. Both of the HP Elitebooks, the Kaveri and Carrizo units, were also hooked up to a Watts Up PRO monitor for a full shakedown of power consumption on some of the more popular tests. We will go into these in detail.

Thermal Effects

As we have seen in previous laptop benchmarking scenarios, the design of the chassis is an important part in understanding how a processor will react to a workload. Some units have their skin temperature limit set unbearably high in order to get the best performance, whereas others are more restrictive. Carrizo promotes the expansion of both of these facets for either better performance or thermals, so we tested it with a FLIR thermal camera during Rocket League on all five systems as well as some internal recording scripts during a few benchmarks.

A Side Note worth Remembering

One intriguing thing to mention in our testing was background processes. Nominally all efforts are done to minimize these (disable WiFi when not needed, disable updates), however when a system comes preinstalled with Intel McAfee anti-virus, it can be an exercise to remove it. Yes, that’s right – for some odd reason, some of the OEMs systems had Intel McAfee pre-installed. I assume it is because the OEM gets a small kickback for including it on their OS image, therefore either increasing margins or reducing the price of the system. McAfee AV is an example of a simple piece of software that can provide a negative user experience – checking of updates when you least expect it, performing mini-scans of everything coming in and out of an I/O port, and for the systems that have mechanical hard drives with single channel memory, it can be the difference between casually watching a film to having to apologize for why a video is dropping frames. Needless to say, it was obliterated.

The other issue is actually a default windows problem. Whenever certain I/O devices are plugged in/removed, or even at random times, the system will call Windows Defender to start probing files and memory in use. The issue here is multiple – it eats up a thread with mostly integer/string work reducing available resources for the user, but on occasion will bring disk drive utilization to 100%, causing access delays when the user is in the middle of something. While Defender can be a critical part of a safer environment, it boggles my mind that it comes on so freely and robs a poorly configured system of its user experience. It also drains battery life as well. This is a disconnect between software developers writing code suitable for the resources available, OEMs for deciding what hardware would be good for a particular price point and believing users are satisfied with such a user experience, and the hardware manufacturers for not circling back round to test the most relevant use cases. It ends up being a negative loop where no-one works with each other, which benefits no-one (more on this later).

Consequently, for our testing I also turned down Windows Defender's activity/sensitivity on all of the test laptops. My personal (insert subjective experience mode) way of ‘delaying’ Windows Defender is to go to Task Scheduler, go to Microsoft > Windows > Windows Defender and on each of the four options change the conditions to:

- Enable ‘Start the task only if the computer is on AC power’
- Enable ‘Stop if the computer switches to battery power’
- Enable ‘Start the task only if the computer is idle for X minutes’
- Enable ‘Stop if the computer ceases to be idle’

How the system determines a true in-OS idle state is somewhat difficult, as some software will have idle periods before called (e.g. watching an online video) so having it come in after 30 seconds idle isn’t usually beneficial, so I (personally) set it for 10 minutes on lower end systems where responsiveness matters.

The System I Didn’t Get to Benchmark: The Dell Inspiron 3656

As part of my meeting schedule, I was offered an explanation as to what goes behind the scenes in retail marketing from one of the senior account managers. We took a trip to the local Best Buy and I was talked through how most areas of the store are, for lack of a better term, rented out by the retailer to the companies who have strict rules to follow. This applies to store-in-stores, end-caps, focused aisles and even the location within the store can affect the price. It made sense, but we came across this following AMD system:

This is the Dell Inspiron 3656 which, for lack of a better description, is Carrizo in a desktop form factor. I asked if I could peek inside, but for some reason no-one in Best Buy had a screwdriver (as if)! But inside is a mobile focused Carrizo CPU, presumably in 35W mode, with sufficient cooling as well as a discrete Radeon R9 360 graphics card in a PCIe x16 slot. Combine in some other factors such as a 2TB HDD, 16GB of DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMMs and you are good to go.

The 3656, as it turns out, can come with three different AMD Carrizo processors (FX-8800P, A10-8700P, A8-8600P) in a thermally unrestrained environment, which would arguably give the best possible scores. The two things I couldn’t confirm were related to the DRAM. I would have liked to know if the design is a true dual channel design for Carrizo only, or if it shares pin compatibility with Carrizo-L which would limit it to single channel only. Also the memory speed – if it is in 35W mode, this would mean the system could engage DDR3-2133 if it uses appropriate SO-DIMM modules. However, the specifications sheet only mentions DDR3L, which is limited to DDR3L-1600. In a desktop like this, the difference between DDR3L and DDR3 would be minor, and the higher speed memory would help benefit (unless it was Carrizo-L focused).

The ‘Who Wants AMD In A Laptop?’ Problem Benchmark Results: CPU Short Form
Comments Locked

175 Comments

View All Comments

  • karakarga - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Including all, AMD and nVidia both at their funeral state! They can not possibly open 22, 14, 10 etc. micron fabric.

    Intel spended 5 billion dollars to open their new Arizona factory, they will pass lower processes there as well. AMD and nVidia can not get, even a billion dollar profit in these years. It is impossible for them to spend that much money to a new low process factory.

    Those little tweaks can not help them to survive....
  • testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    They don't build factories. TSMC and Samsung (and GloFo to a lesser extent) build factories and do R&D for these processes. Nvidia, AMD. Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek and many other companies design chips to the standards of TSMC/Samsung/GloFo and pay money for wafers and running the wafers through the fab.

    The cost for this per wafer is meant to get all that money back in a few years. And than the process keeps on running for over 10 years sometimes.

    It is getting more expensive to get to smaller nodes and the performance increase and power decrease is getting smaller. And costs more to design chips and run wafers. So it is getting harder to find the funds to shrink. Which is one of the reasons Intel has delayed their 10nm process.
  • yannigr2 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Thanks for this review. Really needed for sometime. It was missing from the internet, not just Anandtech.

    As for the laptops, they say as much as there is to tell. Small Chinese makers, who no one knows they exist, would built better laptops than these. HP, Toshiba and Lenovo in this case, multibillion international giants that seems have all the technicians and the R&D funds necessary, end up producing Laptops with "strange" limitations, bad choices, low quality parts and in the end put prices that, even with all those bad choices and limitations, are NOT lower than those on Intel alternatives. It's almost as if Intel makes the choices for the parts in those laptops. Maybe their is a "trololol" sticker on them somewhere hidden addressed to AMD. I guess that way those big OEM don't make Intel too angry and at the same time, if there is another legal battle between AMD and Intel in the future, they will have enough excuses to show to the judge in their defense, if accused that they supported a monopoly.
  • ToTTenTranz - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    This article is what makes Anandtech great. Just keep being like this guys, your work is awesome!
    I'm going to spend some time clicking your ads, you deserve it :)

    As for the "poll" about who's to blame, IMHO it is:

    1 - AMD for letting OEMs place Carrizo in designs with terrible panels and single-channel solutions. It's just not good for the brand. "You can't put a Carrizo with single-channel cheap RAM because that's not how it was designed. You want to build bottom-of-the-barrel laptop? We have Carrizo-L for you."
    I'm pretty sure Intel has this conversation regarding Core M and Atom/Pentium/Celeron solutions. I know AMD is in a worse solution to negotiate, but downplaying Carrizo like this isn't good for anyone but Intel.
    In the end, what AMD needs is a guy who can properly sell their product. Someone who convince the OEMs that good SoCs need to be paired with decent everything-else.
    $500 is plenty for a 12/13" IPS/VA screen (even if it's 720/800p), 128GB SSD and 4+4GB DDR3L. Why not pull a Microsoft's Surface and build a decent SKU for that price range so that other OEMs can follow? Contract one OEM to make the device they envisioned, sell it and see all others following suit.

    2 - OEMs for apparently not having this ONE guy who calls the shots and knows that selling a crappy system automatically means losing customers. And this ONE other guy (or the same) for not knowing that constantly favoring Intel with their solutions is bound to make the whole company's life miserable if Intel's only competitor kicks the bucket. The consumer isn't meant to know these things, but the OEMs certainly are.
    It's 2016. We're way past the age of tricking the customer to buy a terrible user experience through big numbers (like "1TB drive woot"). He/She will feel like the money just wasn't and next time will buy a mac.
    Want a $300-400 price point? Get a Carrizo-L with a 128GB SSD and a 720p IPS panel. Want $500-700 Price point? Get a Carrizo with dual-channel, 256GB SSD and 900p/1080p IPS screen.
  • joex4444 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Anything under 1080p is simply not usable. All these 1366x768 panels are just awful. I have an old netbook with one (12.1") and I've put a small SSD in there and loaded it with Ubuntu. I cannot have a Google Hangouts window open and a web browser open wide enough to view most pages. Basic web browsing + IM - 1366x768 completely fails at the task.
  • testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    768p panels are fine if they are good quality, in 11" laptops.
    900p good up to 13", and 1080p minimum for 14+.

    Honestly I wish we stayed with 8:5 14x9, 16x10, 19x12z
  • jabber - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Indeed, 768p is fine on my 11" Samsung Chromebook but I would not tolerate it on anything bigger. IMO 1600x900 should be the minimum screen res for budget machines. 1080p for midrange and whatever you like for higher end.
  • jjpcat@hotmail.com - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link

    Resolution is not as important as the quality of the panel. I used a Lenovo X1 Carbon. It has a 14" 1080p screen. But it's a TN panel and that just makes it a pain in the ass. I am amazed that Lenovo uses such a lousy panel in its $1k+ laptop while some 10" sub-$200 tablets use IPS.
  • testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Toshiba can make a $400 chromebook with a good 1080p display. Fully agreed.

    1080p panel, make it thicker so you can put a larger battery and so the laptop can handle up to 35W from the APU. Do dual channel.

    When plugged change APU power mad to 35W, when in battery make it 15W. Probably can be done for $500 for a 15" laptop with an A8. $50/100 upgrade to 128/256GB SSD and $50/100 upgrade to A10/FX.
  • Dobson123 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    "The APU contains integrated ‘R6’ level graphics based on GCN 1.0, for 384 streaming processors at a frequency of 533 MHz."

    Isn't it GCN 1.1?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now