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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

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

PDF opening is all about single thread frequency and IPC, giving the win to the new KBL-X chips.

FCAT Processing: link

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

FCAT similarly favors frequency and IPC. For this sort of workload, the Core i7 is the best chip to get.

3D Movement Algorithm Test v2.1: link

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

As 3DPM expands into several threads, the new quad-core parts will easily get trounced here by AMD's 8-cores for the same price. The Core i7-7800X puts on a good showing, as per core Intel's chips give a higher score.

DigiCortex v1.20: link

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 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

DigiCortex likes a bit of everything: cores, threads, IPC, frequency, uncore frequency, and memory frequency. The Core i7 parts roughly double the Core i5s due to the thread count, and also the AMD Ryzen parts skip ahead as well due to having double the threads to the Core i7.

Agisoft Photoscan 1.0: link

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 Total Time

Agisoft is like a Formula 1 race circuit: the long fast straights and techical corners make it a nightmare to have the technology to be the best at both, and Photoscan has enough serial code for high single thread performance to take advantage but also massively parallel sections where having 12-18 threads makes a difference.  Despite having half the threads, the single core performance of the Core i7-7740X makes it pull ahead of the Ryzen 7 chips, but when comparing the four threads of the Core i5-7640X to the twelve threads of the Ryzen 5 processors, having 12 threads wins.

Benchmark Overview Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

176 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    > realize that overclocking may not be appropriate for these workloads

    That's going too far. Just don't overclock as far for heavy AVX usage.
  • MrSpadge - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Kind of agreed. Ian, you should log the clock speeds during benchmark runs and check for anomalies. The chip or mainboard could throttle, or your 4.0 GHz AVX clock could just be way too low. What's the default AVX clock? Maybe 4.4 GHz? That would pretty much match the 10% performance degradation.
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    I need to do a performance scaling piece, I know. It's on the to-do list
  • Kvaern1 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    As already mentioned it's heavy AVX workloads which makes it throttle when OC'ed. The same thing happens on OC'ed Skylakes.
  • arh2o - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Something seems wrong with the 7700k results vs the 7600k results. How is the 7600k beating the 7700k so handily in all the games? Are you sure the graphs are not swapped? ROTR shows the 7600k beating the 7700k by 20 FPS which seems impossible considering most reviews on this game have the 7700k on top of the 7600k.
  • ydeer - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    I would have liked to see some idle power consumption numbers because my PC is always on.
  • Ro_Ja - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    This was an interesting read. Thank you!
  • Marnox - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    According to Intel (https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7... the Turbo speed for the 7700K is the same as the 7740X.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Is the Max Turbo for one core or two? Always bugged me that Intel doesn't list the individual core/bin levels.
  • versesuvius - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    It will be interesting to see how many of these CPUs Intel will actually produce (collect ?) and bring to the market.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now