Benchmarking 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.

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 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.

Office: Chromium Compile (v56)

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)

Benchmarking Performance: PCMark 10 Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

152 Comments

View All Comments

  • Krysto - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Yes, it's total bullshit that they are misinterpreting what TDP is. I imagine this is how they'll get away with claiming a lower TDP than the real one in the 8700k chip, too, which has low base clock speed, but the super-high Turbo-Boost, which probably means the REAL TDP will go through the rough when that Turbo Boost is maximized.

    This is how Intel will get to claim that its chips are still faster than AMD "at the same TDP" (wink wink, nudge nudge).
  • Demigod79 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    "What a load of ignorance. Intel tdp is *average* power at *base* clocks, uses more power at all core turbo clocks here. Disable turbo if that's too much power for you."

    I find it ironic that you would call someone ignorant, then reveal your own ignorance about the TDP and turbo clocks.
  • Spunjji - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    It is now, it wasn't before. Wanna bet on how many people noticed?
  • SodaAnt - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    I'm quite curious what happens if your system cooling simply can't handle it. I suspect if you designed a cooling solution which only supported 165W the CPU would simply throttle itself, but I'm curious by how much.
  • ZeDestructor - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Strictly speaking, all forms of Turbo boost are a form of vendor-sanctioned overclocking. The fact that measured power goes beyond TDP when at max all-core turbo should really not be all that surprising. The ~36% increase in power for ~31% increase in clocks is pretty reasonable and inline when you keep that in mind. Especially when you factor that there has to have been a bit of extra voltage added for stability reasons (power scales linearly with clocks and current, and quadratically to exponentially with voltage).
  • Demigod79 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    I agree. Everything looked good until that page. 190 watts is unacceptable, and Intel needs to correct this right away - either make the CPU run within the TDP limit, or update the TDP to 190 watts in the specs.
  • HStewart - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    It funny that people complain about CPU watts but never about external GPU watts. Keep in mind the GPU is smaller amount of area.
  • artk2219 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    They most certainly do, that is one of the biggest gripes against Vega 64, people do seem to have short memory on how high GPU TDP's used to be however.
  • IGTrading - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    On a video card, the same manufacturer takes responsibility for the GPU, cooling system, design, PCB, components and warranty.

    On the CPU, you have somebody else designing the cooling system, the motherboard, the power lines and they all have to offer warranty for their components while Intel is only concerned with the CPU.

    If the CPU is throttling or burnt out, they will say "sufficient cooling was not provided" and so on ...

    It is a whole lot different.
  • whatevs - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    Thermal throttling is not a burn out and not a warranty event, you don't get to warranty your gpu when it throttles under load, cooling warranty does not include cpu/gpu chip performance and
    Intel designed the ATX specification and the electrical specification for the boards.

    You clearly don't know the things you're talking about.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now