Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests

Our legacy tests represent benchmarks that were once at the height of their time. Some of these are industry standard synthetics, and we have data going back over 10 years. All of the data here has been rerun on Windows 10, and we plan to go back several generations of components to see how performance has evolved.

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

3D Particle Movement v1

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.

Legacy: 3DPM v1 Single ThreadedLegacy: 3DPM v1 MultiThreaded

CineBench 11.5 and 10

Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.

Legacy: CineBench 11.5 MultiThreadedLegacy: CineBench 11.5 Single ThreadedLegacy: CineBench 10 MultiThreadedLegacy: CineBench 10 Single Threaded

x264 HD 3.0

Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.

Legacy: x264 3.0 Pass 1Legacy: x264 3.0 Pass 2

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Office Tests GPU Tests: Civilization 6
POST A COMMENT

115 Comments

View All Comments

  • bigboxes - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    I run to my 4790K to check for HSF. Who would have thought it had one in the box. No one buys that processor to use the stock HSF. Reply
  • mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    I did. Worked fine. Reply
  • Marlin1975 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    My 3570k came with a heatsink.

    Also in the AMD Ryzen reviews here it was pointed out there was no heatsink for the unlocked/higher chips. Yet in this review it was not and they did not use a regular/more common heatsink, but a very costly and less used water cooler.
    Reply
  • npz - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Ok fair enogh, but the stock heatsink & fan Intel uses are crap so I don't think reviewers should be using them for actual benchmarks anyways as it will affect turbo speeds. Reply
  • Marlin1975 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    That's the point. You use what they give to show its real performance. If it has a negative affect that is on the maker, not the user/reviewer.

    That way when you compare different CPUs they all have the same standard cooler so its apples to apples review.
    Reply
  • Inteli - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Surely if you want to compare CPUs apples to apples, you'd want to use the same cooler for all of them (across brands, not just within), so the CPU is what's actually being tested. Why would only a stock cooler give "real performance" anyways? Are you saying the CLC on my 4690k is giving me "fake performance"?

    Not that it matters, because Intel didn't include a stock heat sink with this CPU.

    I would rather see CPUs hooked up to an absolutely overkill cooling setup (maybe a water chiller? :^) ) on stock clocks so the CPU can perform its absolute best.
    Reply
  • npz - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    It's real performance is with an aftermarket heatsink anyways which is why Intel stopped providing them for the K series after Haswell. As long as you use a cooler which will not impede the performance of the cpu, then the cpu benchmarks are all apples to apples comparison. It was so bad it would cause the cpus to throttle with certain heavy loads and you can forget about overclocking, which kills the point of the K-series.

    It will be an absolute disservice if Anandtech benchmarked with the stock heatsink. The only exception is Ryzen, especially Ryzen 2's wraith max heatsink which rivals high end aftermarket cooling
    Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    ok but in the real world nobody is buying a K series CPU and running it stock. Reply
  • mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    I do! (I intended to downclock it but it didn't downclock very well so I just left it at defaults. Stock cooler too - 2500K then 4790K) Reply
  • MDD1963 - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link

    Untrue, if the CPU is already at fairly high temps stock, going 10-15C higher in temps to gain 100 more MHz and 2 more FPS in a game seems ludicrous.... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now