Benchmark Overview

For our review, we are implementing our latest CPU testing benchmark suite, using automated scripts developed specifically for our CPU reviews. This means that with a fresh OS install, we can configure the OS to be more consistent, install the new benchmarks, maintain version consistency without random updates and start running the tests in under 5 minutes. After that it's a one button press to start an 8-10hr test (with a high-performance core) with nearly 100 relevant data points in the benchmarks given below. The tests cover a wide range of segments, some of which will be familiar but some of the tests are new to benchmarking in general, but still highly relevant for the markets they come from.

Our new CPU tests go through six main areas. We cover the Web (we've got an un-updateable version of Chrome 56), general system tests (opening tricky PDFs, emulation, brain simulation, AI, 2D image to 3D model conversion), rendering (ray tracing, modeling), encoding (compression, AES, h264 and HEVC), office based tests (PCMark and others), and our legacy tests, throwbacks from another generation of bad code but interesting to compare.

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

A side note on OS preparation. As we're using Windows 10, there's a large opportunity for something to come in and disrupt our testing. So our default strategy is multiple: disable the ability to update as much as possible, disable Windows Defender, uninstall OneDrive, disable Cortana as much as possible, implement the high performance mode in the power options, and disable the internal platform clock which can drift away from being accurate if the base frequency drifts (and thus the timing ends up inaccurate).

*Please note that due to time constraints, the data in this review does not take into account any effect from the Meltdown and Spectre patches.

Web Tests on Chrome 56

Mozilla Kraken 1.1
Google Octane 2.0
WebXPRT15

System Tests

PDF Opening
FCAT
3DPM v2.1
Dolphin v5.0
DigiCortex v1.20
Agisoft PhotoScan v1.0

Rendering Tests

Corona 1.3
Blender 2.78
LuxMark v3.1 CPU C++
LuxMark v3.1 CPU OpenCL
POV-Ray 3.7.1b4
Cinebench R15 ST
Cinebench R15 MT

Encoding Tests

7-Zip 9.2
WinRAR 5.40
AES Encoding (TrueCrypt 7.2)
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264 LQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264-HQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 HEVC-4K

Office / Professional

PCMark8
Chromium Compile (v56)

Legacy Tests

3DPM v1 ST / MT
x264 HD 3 Pass 1, Pass 2
Cinebench R11.5 ST / MT
Cinebench R10 ST / MT

Gaming CPU Tests

For this review, we have taken two angles with our testing: integrated vs integrated, and integrated vs low-end discrete. To this end, we purchased an MSI GT 1030 2GB graphics card to compare against the integrated offerings, as well as testing AMD and Intel's integrated options. For our gaming tests, we ran the 1080p version of all of our benchmarks:

  • Civilization 6 (1080p Ultra)
  • Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation* 
  • Shadow of Mordor (1080p Ultra)
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider #1 - GeoValley (1080p High)
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider #2 - Prophets (1080p High)
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider #3 - Mountain (1080p High)
  • Rocket League (1080p Ultra)
  • Grand Theft Auto V (1080p Very High)

*Ashes recently had an update which broke our script, and it is not an easy fix, so we have removed this game from our testing

These games are a cross of mix of eSports and high-end titles, and to be honest, we have pushed the quality settings up higher than most people would expect for this level of integrated graphics: most benchmarks hit around 25-30 FPS average with the best IGP solutions, down to 1/3 this with the worst solutions. The best results show that integrated graphics are certainly capable with the right settings, but also shows that there is a long way between integrated graphics and a mid-range discrete graphics option.

Test Bed and Setup iGPU Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • haplo602 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Finally one review where I can see the driver version ... So this is the same driver used also for the Ryzen mobile APUs. Can you check if you can force/manual install the latest Adrenaline drivers ? That works on some of the Ryzen 2500u chips and actually increases the performance by some 15+% ...
  • haplo602 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    I hope there's a memory scaling article in the future with frequency and CL scaling for the APU part ...
  • crotach - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    What about HTPC use?

    I was considering GT 1030 + Intel route for H265 and HDR10 playback and was really looking forward to Zen APUs, but there doesn't seem to be any motherboards with HDMI 2.0?!

    Also, I wonder if the chips can be undervolted and underclocked to bring them to a near silent noise level for the living room.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    You can undervolt and underclock ANY intel or amd cpu.
  • forgerone - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    What most writers and critics of integrated graphics processors such as AMD's APU or Intel iGP all seem to forget, is not EVERYONE in the world has a disposable or discretionary income equal to that of the United States, Europe, Japan etc. Not everyone can afford bleeding edge gaming PC's or laptops. Food, housing and clothing must come first for 80% of the population of the world.

    An APU can grant anyone who can afford at least a decent basic APU the enjoyment of playing most computer games. The visual quality of these games may not be up to the arrogantly high standards of most western gamers, but then again these same folks who are happy to have an APU also can not barely afford a 750p crt monitor much less a 4k flat screen.

    This simple idea is huge not only for the laptop and pc market but especially game developers who can only expect to see an expansion of their Total Addressable Market. And that is good for everybody as broader markets help reduce the cost of development.

    This in fact was the whole point behind AMD's release of Mantle and Microsoft and The Kronos Group's release of DX12 and Vulkan respectively.

    Today's AMD APU has all of the power of a GPU Add In Board of not more than a several years back.
  • krazyfrog - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Why did you leave out the 8400 and the 1500X in these comparisons?
  • Kamgusta - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link

    Because these CPUs, while having the same price range, outperform these Raven Ridge chips. That would have been a bad press for AMD and it seems like Anandtech wants to remains extremely loyal to AMD in these days.
  • msroadkill612 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    "the data shows both how far integrated graphics has come, and how far it still has to go to qualify for those 'immerse experiences' that Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA all claim are worth reaching for, with higher resolutions and higher fidelity. "

    This assumes a static situation which is rot.

    what it reveals is that in the current paradigm, coders have coded accordingly for satisfactory results. If the paradigm changes and other ways work better, then code evolves.

    This unprecedented integration of new gen, sibling cpu & gpu, offers many performance upsides too for future code.

    picture a mobo with a discrete gpu like an equivalent 1030, then picture a ~matchbox footprint apu - there is a huge difference in the size of the respective circuits - yet they both do the same job & have to send a lot of data to each other.

    it's not hard to figure which is inherently superior in many ways.

    I strongly disagree with your blinkered bias.
  • Pork@III - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    There is something unfinished, something inconsolable.
  • elites2012 - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    anything this chip lost to intel at, was most likely outdated. adobe, fcat, dolphin, pov are all outdated benchmarks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now