The Intel Skylake-X Review: Core i9 7900X, i7 7820X and i7 7800X Tested
by Ian Cutress on June 19, 2017 9:01 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.
Chromium Compile (v56)
Our new compilation test uses Windows 10 Pro, VS Community 2015.3 with the Win10 SDK to combile a nightly build of Chromium. We've fixed the test for a build in late March 2017, and we run a fresh full compile in our test. Compilation is the typical example given of a variable threaded workload - some of the compile and linking is linear, whereas other parts are multithreaded.
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.
SYSmark 2014 SE
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 i3-6100, 4GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Integrated HD 530 graphics) is used to provide a baseline score of 1000 in each test.
A note on context for these numbers. AMD left Bapco in the last two years, due to differences of opinion on how the benchmarking suites were chosen and AMD believed the tests are 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
264 Comments
View All Comments
slickr - Tuesday, July 4, 2017 - link
I've been a long time user here and I can SAFELY say you got paid by Intel. How much did they pay you for this ridiculous review?nevcairiel - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
The Ryzen 7 launch review didn't have gaming benchmarks either.ddriver - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
That's true, my bad, I didn't remember AT's review in particular, but I remember in most reviews gaming was like 3/4 of the review...Spunjji - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link
My thoughts exactly. Not bagging on AT specifically here, just review sites in general. A lot of them are giving out TBD on gaming performance with mentions of it being OK at 4K, whereas with Ryzen it was all "but it games badly at 1080p which people spending $500 on a processor will totally be aiming at".bongey - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
They said it in their conclusion "Gaming Performance, particularly towards 240 Hz gaming, is being questioned,""workstation cpu"
ash9 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Totally agree,I find it disingenuous by this site and many others that there's an INTENTIONAL over look to the fact that the 7900X runs 70W higher (PC Perspective) than the 6950X at load- any blind man could see Intel boosted the clocks on the 7900X for cosmetic benchmark wins and to make this lineup today look relevant. Take the 7900X out of the benches and the lineup today looks anemic. This is the BS that should not go unnoticed
Alexvrb - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Reminds me a bit of the pre-Conroe era. Maybe they should have revived the Extreme Edition name...sweetca - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link
Some people actually read the reviews here because they are gathering information for an imminent decision.Not everyone wants to wait 3 weeks (maybe delays?), and then to play it safe wait another 3 weeks for the next thing, etc.
I don't post often, but I was surprised how quickly the writer's integrity and honesty were attacked, considering they were making a subjective evaluation; "safe." I guess this is common now.
Timoo - Saturday, July 1, 2017 - link
To be honest: calling the i9 7900X a "safe bet" is not a scientific decision. The platform is far from perfect and the CPU runs hot when OC'd. It has been introduced 2 months in advance of the official release date, to beat TR. To me these 3 facts don't make it a "safe bet", more like a "daring endeavor to save Intel's face".So yes, I do understand the attacks, apart from the FanBoy's FlameBaits...
someonesomewherelse - Saturday, October 14, 2017 - link
It's pretty safe if you can't actually buy it. Just don't buy it and later get a TR :)