CPU Tests: Synthetic

Most of the people in our industry have a love/hate relationship when it comes to synthetic tests. On the one hand, they’re often good for quick summaries of performance and are easy to use, but most of the time the tests aren’t related to any real software. Synthetic tests are often very good at burrowing down to a specific set of instructions and maximizing the performance out of those. Due to requests from a number of our readers, we have the following synthetic tests.

Linux OpenSSL Speed

In our last review, and on my twitter, I opined about potential new benchmarks for our suite. One of our readers reached out to me and stated that he was interested in looking at OpenSSL hashing rates in Linux. Luckily OpenSSL in Linux has a function called ‘speed’ that allows the user to determine how fast the system is for any given hashing algorithm, as well as signing and verifying messages.

OpenSSL offers a lot of algorithms to choose from, and based on a quick Twitter poll, we narrowed it down to the following:

  1. rsa2048 sign and rsa2048 verify
  2. sha256 at 8K block size
  3. md5 at 8K block size

For each of these tests, we run them in single thread and multithreaded mode.

To automate this test, Windows Subsystem for Linux is needed. For our last benchmark suite I scripted up enabling WSL with Ubuntu 18.04 on Windows in order to run SPEC, so that stays part of the suite (and actually now becomes the biggest pre-install of the suite).

OpenSSL speed has some commands to adjust the time of the test, however the way the script was managing it meant that it never seemed to work properly. However, the ability to adjust how many threads are in play does work, which is important for multithreaded testing.

(8-3a) Linux OpenSSL Speed rsa2048 Sign (1T)(8-3b) Linux OpenSSL Speed rsa2048 Verify (1T)(8-3c) Linux OpenSSL Speed sha256 8K Block (1T)(8-3d) Linux OpenSSL Speed md5 8K Block (1T)

This test produces a lot of graphs, so for full reviews I might keep the rsa2048 ones and just leave the sha256/md5 data in Bench.

(8-4a) Linux OpenSSL Speed rsa2048 Sign (nT)(8-4b) Linux OpenSSL Speed rsa2048 Verify (nT)(8-4c) Linux OpenSSL Speed sha256 8K Block (nT)(8-4d) Linux OpenSSL Speed md5 8K Block (nT)

The AMD CPUs do really well in the sha256 test due to native support for SHA256 instructions.

GeekBench 4: Link

As a common tool for cross-platform testing between mobile, PC, and Mac, GeekBench is an ultimate exercise in synthetic testing across a range of algorithms looking for peak throughput. Tests include encryption, compression, fast Fourier transform, memory operations, n-body physics, matrix operations, histogram manipulation, and HTML parsing.

I’m including this test due to popular demand, although the results do come across as overly synthetic, and a lot of users often put a lot of weight behind the test due to the fact that it is compiled across different platforms (although with different compilers). Technically GeekBench 5 exists, however we do not have a key for the pro version that allows for command line processing.

For reviews we are posting the overall single and multi-threaded results.

(8-1a) Geekbench 4.0 ST(8-1b) Geekbench 4.0 MT

I have noticed that Geekbench 4 over Geekbench 5 does rely a lot on its memory subtests, which could play a factor if we have to test limited-access CPUs in different systems.

AIDA64 Memory Bandwidth: Link

Speaking of memory, one of the requests we have had is to showcase memory bandwidth. Lately AIDA64 has been doing some good work in providing automation access, so for this test I used the command line and some regex to extract the data from the JSON output.  AIDA also provides screenshots of its testing windows as required.

For the most part, we expect CPUs of the same family with the same memory support to not differ that much – there will be minor differences based on the exact frequency of the time, or how the power budget gets moved around, or how many cores are being fed by the memory at one time.

LinX 0.9.5 LINPACK

One of the benchmarks I’ve been after for a while is just something that outputs a very simple GFLOPs FP64 number, or in the case of AI I’d like to get a value for TOPs at a given level of quantization (FP32/FP16/INT8 etc). The most popular tool for doing this on supercomputers is a form of LINPACK, however for consumer systems it’s a case of making sure that the software is optimized for each CPU.

LinX has been a popular interface for LINPACK on Windows for a number of years. However the last official version was 0.6.5, launched in 2015, before the latest Ryzen hardware came into being. HWTips in Korea has been updating LinX and has separated out into two versions, one for Intel and one for AMD, and both have reached version 0.9.5. Unfortunately the AMD version is still a work in progress, as it doesn’t work on Zen 2.

There does exist a program called Linpack Extreme 1.1.3, which claims to be updated to use the latest version of the Intel Math Kernel Libraries. It works great, however the way the interface has been designed means that it can’t be automated for our uses, so we can’t use it.

For LinX 0.9.5, there also is a difficulty of what parameters to put into LINPACK. The two main parameters are problem size and time – choose a problem size too small, and you won’t get peak performance. Choose it too large, and the calculation can go on for hours. To that end, we use the following algorithms as a compromise:

  • Memory Use  = Floor(1000 + 20*sqrt(threads)) MB
  • Time = Floor(10+sqrt(threads)) minutes

For a 4 thread system, we use 1040 MB and run for 12 minutes.
For a 128 thread system, we use 1226 MB and run for 21 minutes.

We take the peak value of GFLOPs by the output as a result. Unfortunately the output doesn’t come out in a clean UTF-8 regular output, which means this is one result we have to read direct from the results file.

(8-5) LinX 0.9.5 LINPACK

As we add in more CPUs, this graph should look more interesting. If a Zen2 version is deployed, we will adjust our script accordingly.

CPU Tests: Legacy and Web CPU Tests: SPEC
Comments Locked

110 Comments

View All Comments

  • vasily - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    You might want to check out Phoronix Test Suite and openbenchmarking.org.

    https://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
    https://openbenchmarking.org/
  • colinisation - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    would love to see the following processors added
    5775C (overclocked to 4Ghz) - just purely to see what impact the eDRAM has on workloads
    4770K
    7600K

    Phenom II X4
    Highest Bulldozer core

    VIA's highest performance x86 core
  • faizoff - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    What a gargantuan project this is going to be. And I cannot wait, oddly enough I've been using the bench tool the past few weeks to get a sense of how much difference an upgrade for me would make.

    I am probably one of the many (or few) people that have still held on to their i5 2500k and this is one of the places I can select that CPU and compare the benchmarks with newer releases.

    This project looks to be an amazing read once all done and will be especially looking forward to those segments "how well does x CPU run today?"
  • Alim345 - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Are you going to make benchmark scripts available? They should be useful for individual comparisons, since many users might have overclocked CPUs which were more common in 2010-2015.
  • brantron - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Just to fill out the starting set:

    7700K needs a common AMD counterpart, i.e. Ryzen 2600
    Sandy or Ivy Bridge i7
    Haswell i7

    That would also make for a good article, as it should be possible to overclock any of those to ~4.5 GHz for a more apples to apples comparison.
  • StormyParis - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Thank you for that. My main question is not "what should I buy" because that's always very well covered, and on a fixed budget there's never much choice anyway, but "should I upgrade *now* which is only worth it when last time's amount of money gets you at least 2x performance. I'ive got a 7yo Core i5... I'll look into it !
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Ian, thanks for this!
    One aspect I've wondered about for a while is whether you could include performance/Watt in your tests and comparisons going forward? I know that's usually done for server CPUs, but I also find it of interest for desktop and laptop CPUs.
  • thebigteam - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    I think I have the below list of Intel CPUs available if needed, likely with working mobos too. Would be very happy to clean out the closet and get these to you guys :) Likely some 2009/2010 Athlons as well
    E8400
    i3 530
    i3 540
    i5 760
    i5 2500
    i5 4670K
  • inighthawki - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Thank you so much for changing your gaming benchmark methodology. I tend to play my games at 1440p on lowest settings for maximum framerates, which is far more often than not CPU bound. It was always so annoying seeing the benchmarks be GPU bound when I'm trying to see how much a new CPU helps.
  • Smell This - Monday, July 20, 2020 - link

    Chicken
    (lol)

    With AM3, AM2+ and AM2 processors, AM3+ processors broke backwards-compatibility.

    A mobo like the MSI 790FX K9A2 Platinum transitioned nearly 250 processors from S754-939, to AM2-AM3, beginning with the single-core Athlon 64 3000+ 'Orleans' up to the PhII x6 DDR3 Thubans.

    These were the progeny of the K8 or 'Hammer' projects. A Real Man would never leave them behind ...

    https://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-MSI/K9A2_Platinum_%...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now