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 modeling, and so on and so forth.

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

Chromium Compile (v56)

Our new compilation test uses Windows 10 Pro, VS Community 2015.3 with the Win10 SDK to compile 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.

Office: Chromium Compile (v56)

One of the interesting data points in our test is the Compile, and it is surprising to see the 1920X only just beat the Ryzen 7 chips. Because this test requires a lot of cross-core communication, the fewer cores per CCX there are, the worse the result. This is why the 1950X in SMT-off mode beats the 3 cores-per-CCX 1920X, along with lower latency memory support. We know that this test is not too keen on victim caches either, but it does seem that the 2MB per core ratio does well for the 1950X, and could explain the performance difference moving from 8 to 12 to 16 cores under the Zen microarchitecture.

PCMark8: link

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.

Office: PCMark8 Home (non-OpenCL)

Office: PCMark8 Work (non-OpenCL)

Strangely, PCMark 8's Creative test seems to be failing across the board. We're trying to narrow down the issue.

SYSmark 2014 SE: link

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.

Office: SYSMark 2014 SE (Overall)

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
POST A COMMENT

349 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    We didn't post gaming performance for Ryzen at launch either, for similar reasons. Reply
  • bongey - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    Stop lying , you commented on gaming performance in your conclusion, without even benchmarking it in gaming.
    That is much worse.
    Reply
  • Adul - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    How is that lying? They did not post gaming benchmarks. That is what he said.What was mention in conclusion was not part of his statement. Reply
  • Integr8d - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    It's called lying by omission... Reply
  • James S - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Ian did not lie even by omission. They clearly stated in the Ryzen conclusion and clearly stated in the Skylake-x conclusion why they didn't test gaming.

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time”
    Reply
  • just4U - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    I think it's pretty ignorant of someone to state that Ian is lying in his own comments about articles he has written.... Reply
  • alysdexia - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link

    Omission isn't lyging; it's self-censorship. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    intel pays good money for advertising at anandtech.... Reply
  • Nfarce - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    Listen to you fanyboy crybabies. Tom's and Guru3D did gaming benches too. Go find a Reddit AMD fanboy forum that will give a 100% glowing review of your precious Threadsnapper. You won't find a single credible tech site out there doing it. It's called impartiality. Oh and one more thing ladies: you all are aware that AMD sent the major tech review sites the EXACT same hardware kit for review, right? Reply
  • tuxRoller - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link

    ThreadSNAPPER? If this was intentional, I assume it's meant to be derogatory, but I'm not sure what it is meant to imply. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now