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

  • SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    They aren't making that much profit off each chip? If they aren't making huge profits then all mobile chip factories lose money by selling the same transistor count processors like the one in Apple or Samsung phones for just $25 Reply
  • Hxx - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    who said binned chips? that would imply added costs. Did intel make some official statement? There is now way the 8086ks are binned chips. Intel clocked the 4.7ghz core to 5ghz on a 8700k. That's doable on any cooler you dont need a binned chip for that. Perhaps additional testing was done to make sure they're stable but there is no way intel cherry picked these chips. Reply
  • AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Okay. So people make purchases. So be it. If it's not better you can purchase something else. And others can make up their own minds. Reply
  • LemmingOverlord - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    No real explanation why the 8086K underperforms the 8700K in multithreaded CPU tests, then. Considering they are rated the same at more than dual-core usage I can't really understand.

    Utter waste of money, that's for sure
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    As noted in the testbed section, this wasn't run on our standard testbed since Ian didn't have it with him in Taiwan. Every motherboard is different, sometimes infuriatingly so. Reply
  • npz - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    DPC latency? Speedstep / clookspeed ramp up differences? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    They all tend to implement uncore clocking differently, even among different products within the same manufacturer. Reply
  • AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Because ASRock and configuration. ASRock boards are a pain to dial in, and sometimes their firmware is an immovable object. Reply
  • artifex - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Waiting for the i7-80286K, so I can hit the turbo button Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link

    I'm waiting for the AMD 5x86 4700x that will slot into an intel motherboard. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now