Benchmarking Performance: CPU System Tests

Our first set of tests is our general system tests. These set of tests are meant to emulate more about what people usually do on a system, like opening large files or processing small stacks of data. This is a bit different to our office testing, which uses more industry standard benchmarks, and a few of the benchmarks here are relatively new and different.

PDF Opening

First up is a self-penned test using a monstrous PDF we once received in advance of attending an event. While the PDF was only a single page, it had so many high-quality layers embedded it was taking north of 15 seconds to open and to gain control on the mid-range notebook I was using at the time. This put it as a great candidate for our 'let's open an obnoxious PDF' test. Here we use Adobe Reader DC, and disable all the update functionality within. The benchmark sets the screen to 1080p, opens the PDF to in fit-to-screen mode, and measures the time from sending the command to open the PDF until it is fully displayed and the user can take control of the software again. The test is repeated ten times, and the average time taken. Results are in milliseconds.

System: PDF Opening with Adobe Reader DC

FCAT Processing

One of the more interesting workloads that has crossed our desks in recent quarters is FCAT - the tool we use to measure stuttering in gaming due to dropped or runt frames. The FCAT process requires enabling a color-based overlay onto a game, recording the gameplay, and then parsing the video file through the analysis software. The software is mostly single-threaded, however because the video is basically in a raw format, the file size is large and requires moving a lot of data around. For our test, we take a 90-second clip of the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark running on a GTX 980 Ti at 1440p, which comes in around 21 GB, and measure the time it takes to process through the visual analysis tool. 

System: FCAT Processing ROTR 1440p GTX1080 Data

3D Particle Movement v2.1 

This is the latest version of the self-penned 3DPM benchmark. The goal of 3DPM is to simulate semi-optimized scientific algorithms taken directly from my doctorate thesis. Version 2.1 improves over 2.0 by passing the main particle structs by reference rather than by value, and decreasing the amount of double->float->double recasts the compiler was adding in. It affords a ~25% speed-up over v2.0, which means new data. 

System: 3D Particle Movement v2.1

DigiCortex 1.16

Despite being a couple of years old, the DigiCortex software is a pet project for the visualization of neuron and synapse activity in the brain. The software comes with a variety of benchmark modes, and we take the small benchmark which runs a 32k neuron/1.8B synapse simulation. The results on the output are given as a fraction of whether the system can simulate in real-time, so anything above a value of one is suitable for real-time work. The benchmark offers a 'no firing synapse' mode, which in essence detects DRAM and bus speed, however we take the firing mode which adds CPU work with every firing.

System: DigiCortex 1.16 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

Agisoft Photoscan 1.0

Photoscan stays in our benchmark suite from the previous version, however now we are running on Windows 10 so features such as Speed Shift on the latest processors come into play. The concept of Photoscan is translating many 2D images into a 3D model - so the more detailed the images, and the more you have, the better the model. The algorithm has four stages, some single threaded and some multi-threaded, along with some cache/memory dependency in there as well. For some of the more variable threaded workload, features such as Speed Shift and XFR will be able to take advantage of CPU stalls or downtime, giving sizeable speedups on newer microarchitectures.

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Stage 1

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Stage 2

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Stage 3

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Stage 4

System: Agisoft Photoscan 1.0 Total Time

Test Bed Setup and Hardware Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

574 Comments

View All Comments

  • Cooe - Sunday, February 28, 2021 - link

    Absolute nonsense. Game code is optimized specifically for the Intel Core pipeline & ESPECIALLY it's ring bus interconnect. There's no such thing as "optimizing for x86". Code is either written with the x86 ISA or its not...
  • FriendlyUser - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    The 1700X with a premium motherboard is cheaper and faster than the 6850K. If you absolutely need the extra PCIe lanes or the 8 DIMM slots, then x99 is better, otherwise you are getting less perf/$.
  • mapesdhs - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Or a used X79. I'm still rather surprised how close my 3930K/4.8 results are to the tests results shown here (CB10/ST = 7935, CB10/MT = 42389 , CB11.5/MT = 13.80, CB R15 MT = 1241). People are selling used 3930Ks for as little as 80 UKP now, though finding a decent mbd is a bit more tricky.

    I have an ASUS R5E/6850K setup to test, alongside a used-parts ASYS P9X79-E WS/4960X which cost scarily less than the new X99 setup, it'll be interesting to see how these behave against the KL/BW-E/Ryzen numbers shown here.

    Ian.
  • Aerodrifting - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    "$500 1800x is still too expensive. According to this even a 7700k @ $300 -$350 is still a good choice for gamers."
    Same thing can be said for every Intel extreme platform processors, $1000 5960X/6900K is still too expensive, $1600 6950X is too expensive, Because 7700K is better for gaming.
    Then you said "2011-v3 still offers a platform with more PCIe3 lanes and quad memory channel. ", Which directly contradict what you said earlier about gaming, How does more PCIe3 lanes and quad channel memory improve your FPS when video cards run fine with x8.
    Your are too idiotic to even run coherent argument.
  • lmcd - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    What on earth are you talking about? PCIe3 lanes and quad channel memory are helpful for prosumer workloads. It's not contradictory at all?
  • mapesdhs - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Yup, quad GPU for After Effects RT3D, and fast RAM makes quite a difference.
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link

    @mapesdhs:

    Indeed.

    Also, I can actually 'feel' the difference going from dual to quad channel ram performance.

    I checked, and I hadn't correctly seated one of my four 16GB modules...

    Shutdown, reseat, reboot, and it 'felt' faster again.
  • Aerodrifting - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Learn to read a complete sentence please.
    "nos024" was complaining gaming performance, Then he pulled out extra PCIe3 lanes and quad channel memory to defend X99 platform even though they were also inferior to 7700K in gaming (just like Ryzen). That makes him sound like a completely moron, Because games don't care about those extra PCIe lane or quad channel memory.
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link

    X99 'inferior'?

    I just popped over the 3dmark11's results page, selected GPU as 1080, and I had to scroll down to 199th place (a 7700k clocked to a likely LN2 5.8GHz), to find a system that wasn't triple, or quad channel equipped.

    Here: http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?url=/proxycon/ajax/...

    So I guess those lanes don't help us multip-gpu people after all?

    Swallow.
  • Aerodrifting - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link

    Because 3Dmark11 hall of fame ranking equals real life gaming performance.

    Are you a moron or just trolling? Everyone knows when it comes to gaming, A high frequency i7 (such as 7700K) beats everything else, Including 8 core Ryzen or 10 core i7 extreme 6950X.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now