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 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


View All Comments

  • owan - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    A nice little pop over the previous generation and its still woeful compared to its direct competition from intel. I wonder why AMD even bothered with this product, Intel has a complete stranglehold on the mobile market and AMD's design wins are few and far between. Surely some of the architectural changes could have been rolled into a replacement for their incredibly stale AM3+ products, which have by now become completely irrelevant. I mean, we all know Zen is coming (and I hope its good) but something in the meantime would probably have done more for their mind share than a mobile part.
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    "I wonder why AMD even bothered with this product"
    Yeah, pretty much what I've been thinking with AMD's CPU launches for a while now. *Surely* they can't be making money on their CPUs compared to how much they spend on researching, testing, producing and then marketing them?

    (Unless there's a market that's low-profile in the media but is lucrative for AMD - perhaps the low budget market in Asia?)
  • patel21 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I'm from Asia, India. And here too people are smart enough to ignore AMD even in really low budget systems. And really we still have a complete PC with P4 or C2D easily available around 100$
  • jospoortvliet - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Compared to a p4 these amd cpu's are amazing... remember that in the time of the P4, amd made the faster more power efficient cpu's.
  • mr_tawan - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    P4 or C2D are worse than every current AMD cpus on the market .... in one or another aspect.
  • BlueBlazer - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    It is called "progress". Both Intel Pentium4 and Intel Core 2 Duo are already out of production years ago. Also it was Intel's Core 2 Duo that blew away AMD back into the stone age a decade ago, and since then AMD has never recovered. AMD's QuadFather FX and Barcelona (especially the TLB bugged ones) are the worst CPUs of their era (quite often was much slower than previous generation overall).
  • bananaforscale - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    P4? Ew. :P (I have a P4D in the other room, it's not really preferable to anything. That if anything is a dead end.)
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    AMD is good in laptops. It will be better when Zen is out. Zen on the desktop may be good depending on the benchmarks and price.
  • mr_tawan - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    I'm from Asia, Thailand. AFAIK AMD is pretty popular among internet cafe' (or should I say... game center instead ?).
  • BlueBlazer - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Over here, hardly see AMD being used in internet cafes.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now