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

There's not much between the Threadripper CPUs here, but frequency wins the day.

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 and visually analyze 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 GTX980Ti Data

Similar to PDF opening, single threaded performance wins out.

Dolphin Benchmark: link

Many emulators are often bound by single thread CPU performance, and general reports tended to suggest that Haswell provided a significant boost to emulator performance. This benchmark runs a Wii program that ray traces a complex 3D scene inside the Dolphin Wii emulator. Performance on this benchmark is a good proxy of the speed of Dolphin CPU emulation, which is an intensive single core task using most aspects of a CPU. Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores 17.53 minutes.

System: Dolphin 5.0 Render Test

Dolphin likes single thread performance as well, although interpreting this graph is giving me somewhat of a headache. Game Mode seems to give a small improvement here.

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

Our first pure multithreaded test, and the 1950X wins with 32 threads. The 1920X beats the 1950X in Game mode, due to 24 threads beating 16 cores. The 1800X edges out the 1950X-GM due to frequency.

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.

Unfortunately we had issues with the 1920X posting a result.

System: DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

DigiCortex requires a mash of CPU frequency and DRAM performance to get a good result, although the 1950X in any mode regresses the result, even in Game Mode, suggesting it is more sensitive to overall DRAM latency.

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

The variable threaded nature of Agisoft shows that in our workflow, it's a mix of cores, IPC and frequency required to win. The quad-channel memory and lower crosstalk of the 1950X in Game Mode seems to get a marginal improvement over the 1950X.

The 2017 Benchmark Suite Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

104 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gigaplex - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    How is Windows supposed to know when a specific app will run better with SMT enabled/disabled, NUMA, or even settings like SLI/Crossfire and PCIe lane distribution between peripheral cards? If your answer is app profiles based on benchmark testing, there's no way Microsoft will do that for all the near infinite configurations of hardware against all the Windows software out there. They've cut back on their own testing and fired most of their testing team. It's mostly customer beta testing instead.
  • peevee - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    Windows does not know whether it is a critical gaming thread or not. Setting thread affinity is not a rocket science - unless you are some Java "programmer".
  • Spoelie - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    And anyone not writing directly in assembly should be shot on sight, right?
  • peevee - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    You don't need to write in assembly to set thread affinities.
  • Glock24 - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    Seems like the 1800X is a better all around CPU. If you really need and can use more than 8C/16T then get TR.

    For mixed workloads of gaming and productivity the 1800X or any of the smaller siblings is a better choice.
  • msroadkill612 - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    The decision watershed is pcie3 lanes imo. Otherwise, the ryzen is a mighty advance in the mainstream sweet spot over ~6 months ago.

    OTH, I see lane hungry nvme ports as a boon to expanding a pcs abilities later. The premium for an 8 core TR & mobo over ryzen seems cost justifiable expandability.
  • Luckz - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    It seems that the 1800X has the NVIDIA spend less time doing weird stuff.
  • franzeal - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    If you're going to reference Intel in your benchmark summaries (Rocket League is one place I noticed it), either include them or don't forget to edit them out of your copy/paste job.
  • Luckz - Friday, August 18, 2017 - link

    WCCFTech-Level writing, eh.
  • franzeal - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    Again, as with the original article, the description for the Dolphin render benchmarks is incorrectly stating that the results are shown in minutes.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now