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 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 modelling, and so on and so forth. At present we have two such tools to use.
PCMark8
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. The Creative workload unfortunately seems to fail from the commandline, as the graphical test gives an output of zero (update 3/8: we've found a way around this; will update when we get CPUs retested).
Addendum on 3/8: Originally we posted PCM8 Home scores for Ryzen that were around 3800. On further inspection, these runs were misconfigured due to circumstances beyond our control, and test data is being re-run. The Ryzen 7 1800X in this instance scores 4515.
SYSmark 2014
SYSmark is developed by Bapco, a consortium of industry CPU companies. The goal of SYSmark is to take stripped down versions of popular software, such as Photoshop and Onenote, and measure how long it takes to process certain tasks within that software. The end result is a score for each of the three segments (Office, Media, Data) as well as an overall score. Here a reference system (Core i3-4130, 4GB DRAM, 500GB HDD) is used to provide a baseline score of 1000. A newer version of the benchmark (2014 SE) will be used in future reviews.
A note on contect for these numbers. AMD left Bapco in the last two years, due to differences of opinion on how the benchmarking suites were angled towards Intel processors and had optimizations to show bigger differences than what AMD felt was present. The following benchmarks are provided as data, but the conflict of opinion between the two companies on the validity of the benchmark is provided as context for the following numbers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Yet another example of manipulation which wouldn't be tolerated in other areas of commercial product. I keep coming across examples in the tech world where products are deliberately crippled, prices get hiked, etc., but because it's tech stuff, nobody cares. Media never mentions it.Last week I asked a seller site about why a particular 32GB 3200MHz DDR4 kit they had listed (awaiting an ETA) was so much cheaper than the official kits for Ryzen (same brand of RAM please note). Overnight, the seller site changed the ETA to next week but also increased the price by a whopping 80%, making it completely irrelevant. I've seen this happen three times with different products in the last 2 weeks.
Ian.
HomeworldFound - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
If they were pretty cheap then use your logic, placeholder prices happen. If they had no ETA the chances is that they had no prices. I don't see a shortage of decent DDR4 so it definitely isn't a supply and demand problem. Perhaps you need to talk to the manufacturer to get their guideline prices.HomeworldFound - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Not really. If developers wanted to enhance AMD platforms, or it was actually worth it they'd have done it by now. It's now just an excuse to explain either underperformance or an inability to work with the industry.Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
@ sedraIt certainly should not be forgotten, that is for sure.
Rene23 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
yet people here mentioned multiple times "settled in 2009"; pretending it is not happening anymore, sick :-/GeoffreyA - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I kind of vaguely knew that benchmarks were often unfairly optimised for Intel CPUs; but I never knew this detailed information before, and from such a reputable source: Agner Fog. I know that he's an authority on CPU microarchitectures and things like that. Intel is evil. Even now with Ryzen, it seems the whole software ecosystem is somewhat suboptimal on it, because of software being tuned over the last decade for the Core microarchitecture. Yet, despite all that, Ryzen is still smashing Intel in many of the benchmarks.Outlander_04 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Settled in 2009 .Not relevant to optimisation for Ryzen in any way
Rene23 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
settled in 2009 does not mean their current compiler and libraries are not doing it anymore, e.g. it could simply not run the best SSE/AVX code path disguised as simply not matching new AMD cpus properly.cocochanel - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
One thing that is not being mentioned by many is the increase in savings when you buy a CPU + mobo. Intel knows how to milk the consumer. On their 6-8 core flagships, a mobo with a top chipset will set you back 300-400 $ or even more. That's a lot for a mobo. Add the overpriced CPU. I expect AMD mobos to offer better value. Historically, they always did.On top of that, a VEGA GPU will probably be a better match for Ryzen than an Nvidia card, but I say probably and not certainly.
If I were to replace my aging gaming rig for Christmas, this would be my first choice.
mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Bang goes the saving when one asks about a RAM kit awaiting an ETA and the seller hikes the price by 80% overnight (see my comment above).