The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTBenchmarking 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
theuglyman0war - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
I'd like to see a lot more older i7 extreme editions covered all the way to westmere so I can sell clients on new builds with such a comparison.mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Which older i7s interest you specifically?theuglyman0war - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Checking what I paid last month for i7-7700k at Microcenter...Although I did get the motherboard combo price sale they "usually" offer...
The supposed $60 off for $319 is the cheapest price I found with a quick survey of new egg, amazon etc... And only $20 less then what I paid! Hardly A slashed priced answer shot across the bow by Intel! Not by a long shot!
I thought I was going to recommend the new cheap price to all my customer's new builds but I am pushing RYZEN and AM4 for a real combined price that makes a difference. ( the cheap price for enthusiast Am4 is enticing but the loss of PCI lanes is of concern for extreme cpu comparison anyway. Not so much compared to i7-7700k though which brings the comparison back to 16 lane parity! )
theuglyman0war - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Could anyone actually point me to the amazing slashed deals that "BEAT" what I couldn't get last month by a long shot?( which was $349 BEFORE rebate. In other words it's not like there were not sales last month as well. And I see nothing now that really amounts to AMAZING compared to last month? )
Pretty dam insulting from somewhere in the pipe? Not sure if it's Intel. Or it's resellers clinging on to greedy margins not reflecting the savings to save their own ass's and bottom line due to stock considerations? Which iz no excuse considering the writing was on the wall. Someone needs to do a lot better. A heck of a lot better. Particularly considering I was thinking I could jes laff off AMD with an Intel savings and now have egg on my face! :)
rpns - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
The 'Test Bed Setup' section could do with some more details. E.g. what BIOS version? Windows 10 build version? Any notable driver versions?These details aren't useful just now, but also when looking back at the review a few months down the line.
jorkevyn - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
why they don't get 4 channel for DDR4 memory? I think, if you get that you will may be the real I7 6950K Killersedra - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
have a look at this:"Many software programmers consider Intel's compiler the best optimizing compiler on the market, and it is often the preferred compiler for the most critical applications. Likewise, Intel is supplying a lot of highly optimized function libraries for many different technical and scientific applications. In many cases, there are no good alternatives to Intel's function libraries.
Unfortunately, software compiled with the Intel compiler or the Intel function libraries has inferior performance on AMD and VIA processors. The reason is that the compiler or library can make multiple versions of a piece of code, each optimized for a certain processor and instruction set, for example SSE2, SSE3, etc. The system includes a function that detects which type of CPU it is running on and chooses the optimal code path for that CPU. This is called a CPU dispatcher. However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string. If the vendor string says "GenuineIntel" then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49&a...
HomeworldFound - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Everyone here already knew that ten years ago.Notmyusualid - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Indeed it was.sedra - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
it is worth to bring it up now.