HEDT Benchmarks: Office Tests

The Office test suite is designed to focus around more industry standard tests that focus on office workflows, system meetings, some synthetics, but we also bundle compiler performance in with this section. For users that have to evaluate hardware in general, these are usually the benchmarks that most consider.

PCMark 10: Industry Standard System Profiler

Futuremark, now known as UL, has developed benchmarks that have become industry standards for around two decades. The latest complete system test suite is PCMark 10, upgrading over PCMark 8 with updated tests and more OpenCL invested into use cases such as video streaming.

PCMark splits its scores into about 14 different areas, including application startup, web, spreadsheets, photo editing, rendering, video conferencing, and physics. We post all of these numbers in our benchmark database, Bench, however the key metric for the review is the overall score.

PCMark10 Extended Score

One of the downsides of PCMark is that it seems to bunch up all the results, showing them relatively close together, but interestingly here that the Intel processors sit near the bottom, with the 2950X and 2700X on the podium.

Chromium Compile: Windows VC++ Compile of Chrome 56

A large number of AnandTech readers are software engineers, looking at how the hardware they use performs. While compiling a Linux kernel is ‘standard’ for the reviewers who often compile, our test is a little more varied – we are using the windows instructions to compile Chrome, specifically a Chrome 56 build from March 2017, as that was when we built the test. Google quite handily gives instructions on how to compile with Windows, along with a 400k file download for the repo.

In our test, using Google’s instructions, we use the MSVC compiler and ninja developer tools to manage the compile. As you may expect, the benchmark is variably threaded, with a mix of DRAM requirements that benefit from faster caches. Data procured in our test is the time taken for the compile, which we convert into compiles per day.

Compile Chromium (Rate)

This test is such a nice mix of ST, MT, and memory limited flow that it is really interesting to see where the results end up. Unfortunately for our new suite the output files were not set up correctly, so despite running the test we only ever got a handful of results. But it shows an interesting metric: the 2950X sits ahead of the 2990WX, with both ahead of the Core i9, and the EPYC system being beaten handily due to its lower frequencies.

3DMark Physics: In-Game Physics Compute

Alongside PCMark is 3DMark, Futuremark’s (UL’s) gaming test suite. Each gaming tests consists of one or two GPU heavy scenes, along with a physics test that is indicative of when the test was written and the platform it is aimed at. The main overriding tests, in order of complexity, are Ice Storm, Cloud Gate, Sky Diver, Fire Strike, and Time Spy.

Some of the subtests offer variants, such as Ice Storm Unlimited, which is aimed at mobile platforms with an off-screen rendering, or Fire Strike Ultra which is aimed at high-end 4K systems with lots of the added features turned on. Time Spy also currently has an AVX-512 mode (which we may be using in the future).

For our tests, we report in Bench the results from every physics test, but for the sake of the review we keep it to the most demanding of each scene: Ice Storm Unlimited, Cloud Gate, Sky Diver, Fire Strike Ultra, and Time Spy.

3DMark Physics - Ice Storm Unlimited3DMark Physics - Cloud Gate3DMark Physics - Sky Diver3DMark Physics - Fire Strike Ultra3DMark Physics - Time Spy

In the low end tests, it is clear that having these big processors doesn’t do much for performance, but even as we go up through Fire Strike and Time Spy, there seems to be a natural limit to the usefulness of these parts. Physics clearly loves having some extra memory bandwidth, and we know Time Spy isn’t meant to scale beyond about 10 cores, but we do see the 10 core processor sitting out front. Some of our testing sweeps had this benchmark configured incorrectly so it will be interesting to see how it fills out with some other mid and high core count processors.

GeekBench4: Synthetics

A common tool for cross-platform testing between mobile, PC, and Mac, GeekBench 4 is an ultimate exercise in synthetic testing across a range of algorithms looking for peak throughput. Tests include encryption, compression, fast fourier transform, memory operations, n-body physics, matrix operations, histogram manipulation, and HTML parsing.

I’m including this test due to popular demand, although the results do come across as overly synthetic, and a lot of users often put a lot of weight behind the test due to the fact that it is compiled across different platforms (although with different compilers).

We record the main subtest scores (Crypto, Integer, Floating Point, Memory) in our benchmark database, but for the review we post the overall single and multi-threaded results.

Geekbench 4 - ST Overall

Geekbench 4 - MT Overall

HEDT Benchmarks: Rendering Tests HEDT Benchmarks: Encoding Tests
Comments Locked

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • jospoortvliet - Saturday, August 18, 2018 - link

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&... has some.
  • nul0b - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Ian please define how exactly you're calculating and deriving uncore and IF power utilization.
  • alpha754293 - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    I vote that from now on, all of the CPU reviews should be like this.

    Just raw data.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    To resume:

    Intel's TDP is a blatant lie, it barely keeps at TDP at 6c/6t, meanwhile AMD stick on point or below TDP with their chips, boost included :D
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Selling more shares from $1.65 now to $19 :D

    AMD Threadripper 2, ripping the blue hole.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    It seems geekbench can't scale beyond 16cores.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    WHERE IS CINEBENCH?
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    And I mean CB15

    Also, for some reason CB11.5 MT seems to be broken for TR, it stops caling at 12cores.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    CB R15 is suffering issues aswell these days, at this level it can exhibit huge variance from one run to another.
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Thanks Ian, great article, look forward to seeing the full final version!

    My conclusions: All these are workstation processors, NOT for gaming; the Ryzen 2700X and the upcoming Intel octacore 9000 series are/will be better for gaming, both in value for money and absolute performance. That being said, the TR 2950X could be a great choice, if your productivity software can make good use of the 16 cores/32 threads, and if that same software isn't written to make strong use of AVX 512. If the applications that you buy these monsters can make heavy use of AVX 512, Intel's chips are currently hard or impossible to beat, even at the same price point. That being said, a 2950X workstation with 128 or 256 Gb of RAM (in quad channel, of course), plus some fast PCIe/NVMe SSDs and a big & fast graphics card would make an awesome video editing setup; and, the 60 PCIe channels would come in really handy for add-in boards. One fly in the ointment: AMD, since you're hamstringing TR with only quad-channel, at least let us use faster DDR4; how about officially supporting > 3.2 Ghz?

    Unrelated: Love the testing setup where the system storage SSD ( 1TB) is the same size as the working memory (1 TB). With one of these, you know you're in the heavyweight division.

    @Ian: I also really appreciate the testing of power draws by cores vs. interconnecting fabric. I also believe (as you wrote) that this is a much underappreciated hurdle in simply escalating the number of cores. I also wonder a. How is that affecting ARM-based multicore chips, especially once we are talking 32 cores and up, as for the chips intended for servers? and b. Is that one of the reasons (or THE reason) why ARM-based manycore solutions have not been getting much traction, and why companies like Qualcomm have stopped their development? Yes, the cores might be very efficient, but if those power savings are being gobbled up by the interconnects, fewer but broader and deeper cores might still end up winning the performance/wh race.
    If you and/or Ryan (or any of your colleagues) could do a deep dive into the general issue of power use by the interconnecting fabric and the different architectures, I would really appreciate it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now