The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review: Twelve Threads vs Four at $250
by Ian Cutress on April 11, 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.
Opening PDFs using Adobe is significantly single threaded, hence why Intel takes the win here for the most part - the 7400 is slightly lower on frequency, enough for the 4.0 GHz Ryzen parts to push ahead.
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.
Similarly, FCAT is single threaded as it analyzes frame-by-frame. The extra frequency helps Intel here.
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 1.20
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.
Because parts of Photoscan are very multithreaded, such as the first stage, there's plenty of scope for the Ryzen CPUs to pull ahead here.
254 Comments
View All Comments
msroadkill612 - Thursday, May 4, 2017 - link
I still dont get what the deal w/ am4 mobos and a pair of m.2 pcie3 nand ssdS in raid 0 is?the x370 (but not the x350) chipset seems to allow an extra 4x pcie3 lanes, directly linked to the cpu (not shared lanes via the chipset), for one or 2 x onboard m.2 sockets.
But its never made clear, to me anyway, that if u use 2 m.2 drives, does each get 2 lanes of pcie3, and therefore are perfectly matched, as desired by raid0.
Surely its not just me that finds a 4GBps storage resource exciting?
(e.g. see storage in specs on link re m.2)
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X370-XPOWER-GAMING...
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X370-XPOWER-GAMING...
I suspect it translates to 2 x 2 lane pcie3 lanes - 2GBps for each m.2 nvme ssd socket, which surreally, is less than samsung nvme ssdS e.gS maxed out ability of 2.5GB+ ea.
Drives are now too fast for the interface :)
A pair of nand nvme ssds could individually max out each of the 2, 2 pci3 lane sockets (2 GB each), for a total of up to 4GBps read AND WRITE (normally write is much slower than read on single drives). Thats just insane storage speed vs historical norms - a true propeller head would kill for that.
I also hear ssdS are so reliable now, that the risks of raid 0 are considerably diminished.
IMO, a big question prospective ~server & workstation ryzen users should be asking, is if they can manage w/ 8 lanes of pcie3 for their gpu - which seems entirely possible?
"Video cards do benefit from faster slots, but only a little. Unless you are swapping huge textures all the time, even 4x is quite close to 16x because the whole point of 8GB VRAM is to avoid using the PCIe at all costs. Plus many new games will pre-load textures in an intelligent manner and hide the latency. So, running two 8x SLI/CF is almost identical to two 16x cards. The M.2 drives are much faster in disk-intensive workloads, but the differences in consumer workloads (load an application, a game level) are often minimal. You really need to understand the kind of work you are doing. If you are loading and processing huge video streams, for example, then M.2 is worth it. NVMe RAID0 is even more extreme. Will the CPU keep up? Are you reaching a point of diminishing returns? And if you do need such power, you should consider a separate controller to offload the checksuming and related overhead, otherwise you will need 1 core just to keep up with the RAID array."
(interesting last line - w/ 8 cores the new black, who cares?)
This would free up 8x pcie3 lanes for a high end add in card if a big end of town app requires it.
So yeah, re a raid 0 using 2 m.2 slots onboard a suitable 2xm.2 slot am4 mobo, do I get what i need for proper raid0?
i.e.
each slot is 2GBps, so my raid pair is evenly matched, and the pair theoretically capable of 4GBps b4 bandwidth is saturated?
msroadkill612 - Thursday, May 4, 2017 - link
PS re my prev postspecifically from the link
"• AMD® X370 Chipset
....
• 2 x M.2 ports (Key M)
- M2_1 slot supports PCIe 3.0 x4 (RYZEN series processor) or PCIe 3.0 x2 (7th Gen A-series/ Athlon™ processors) and SATA 6Gb/s 2242/ 2260 /2280/ 22110 storage devices
- M2_2 slot supports PCIe 2.0 x4 and SATA 6Gb/s 2242/ 2260 /2280 storage devices
• 1 x U.2 port
- Supports PCIe 3.0 x4 (RYZEN series processor) or PCIe 3.0 x2 (7th Gen A-series/ Athlon™ processors) NVMe storage
* Maximum support 2x M.2 PCIe SSDs + 6x SATA HDDs or 2x M.2 SATA SSDs + 4x SATA HDDs."
it sure seems to be saying the 2nd m.2 poet would be a pcie2 port, and the first m.2 port uses the whole 4 pcie3 lanes linked to the cpu.
thats sad if so - it means no matched pair for raid 0 onboard. only a separate controller would do.
i cannot see why? why cant the 4 pcie3 lanes be shared evenly?
asuchemist - Wednesday, May 17, 2017 - link
Every review I read has different results but same conclusion.rogerdpack - Tuesday, March 27, 2018 - link
"hard to notice" -> "hard not to notice" I think...