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)

Having redone our compile testing, we can see that the new Ryzen-2000 series parts do provide a good uplift over the first generation, likely due to the decreased cache latencies and better precision boost. Performance per dollar between the 8700K and the 2700X would seem to be about equal as well.

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 Creative (non-OpenCL)Office: PCMark8 Home (non-OpenCL)Office: PCMark8 Work (non-OpenCL)

PCMark 10

Office: PCMark10 Extended Score (Overall)

GeekBench4

Office: Geekbench 4 - Single Threaded Score (Overall)

Office: Geekbench 4 - MultiThreaded Score (Overall)

If you live and breathe GeekBench 4, then the single threaded results put Intel firmly in first place. For the multi-threaded tests, the top Intel and AMD mainstream parts are going at it almost neck-and-neck, however it is clear that the previous generation quad-cores are falling behind.

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
Comments Locked

545 Comments

View All Comments

  • peevee - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    I mean, Octane test in Chrome is what V8 javascript compiler does. And it itself is build with MSVC AFAIR.
  • Dragonstongue - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    just looking back at this, you say according to title 2700x-2700-2600x-2600 and yet in most tests are only listing the results for 2700x-2600x..not good for someone really wanting to see the differences in power use or performance comparing them head to head sort of speak.

    seems the 2700 would be a "good choice" as according to the little bit of info given about it, it ends up using less power than the 2600 even though rated same TDP with 2 extra core 4 extra threads O.O

    I do "hope" the sellers such as amazon at least for us Canadian folk stick closer to the price they should be vs tacking on $15-$25 or more compared to MSRP pricing, seems if one bought them same day of launch pricing was right where it should be.

    1600 has bounced around a little bit whereas 1600x is actually a fair price compared to what it was "very tempting" though the lack of a boxed cooler is not good.....shame 2600 only comes with wraith stealth instead of spire seeing as the price is SOOO close (not to mention at least launch price vs what the 1xxx generation is NOW, AMD should have been extra nice and bundled the wraith spire for 2600-2600x and wraith LED and wraith max or whatever for the 2700-2700x

    I would imagine if they decide to do a 4 core 8 thread 2xxx that would be the spot to use the wraith spire (less heat load via less cores type deal)
  • 29a - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    Not trying to be sarcastic but will this article be finished? I really wanted to read the storage and chipset info. If the article is as complete as it is going to get please let us know, 20 year reader asking.
  • John_M - Saturday, April 28, 2018 - link

    I'm sure it will be finished one day but I agree that it doesn't seem so at the moment. If you want to find out about StoreMI AMD has a page about it: https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/store-mi
  • ET - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    I think we've got ourselves a race: which will get here first, the missing parts of the 2nd gen Ryzen review, or new Raven Ridge drivers? Or perhaps hell will freeze first.
  • 29a - Friday, May 4, 2018 - link

    Sadly it appears as though the article will not be finished. This site was great during about its first 15 years of existence, Purch has done a thorough job of purching it up.
  • jor5 - Tuesday, May 8, 2018 - link

    Oh dear what an embarrassing end to this article.

    Tuck it away under "what was I thinking??" and pretend it never happened.
  • x0fff8 - Wednesday, May 9, 2018 - link

    is this article ever gonna get updated with the new benchmarks?
  • MDD1963 - Thursday, May 10, 2018 - link

    And just like that, my 7700K is fast again! :)
  • peevee - Thursday, May 10, 2018 - link

    "Technically the details of the chipset are also covered by the April 19th embargo, so we cannot mention exactly what makes them different to the X370 platform until then"

    That was written for the article published April 19th, and as of May 10th STILL in the text.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now