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

  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    I don't really see a point OCing the 2990WX, it seems quite efficient at stock setting with an average of 170w fully loaded, why go all the way to 400w+ for just 30% extra performance, it already destroys the 2950X/7980XE OCed to hell beyond repair.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Threadripper 2990WX = Raid Boss
  • yeeeeman - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Amazing performance from AMDs part. If you want to see a real review of 2990WX from a reviewer who understands how this CPU will be used, please check https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
  • mapesdhs - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Figured it would be those guys. 8) I talked to them way back when they started using C-ray for testing, after the original benchmark author handed it over to me for general public usage, though it's kinda spread all over the place since then. Yes, they did a good writeup. It's amusing when elsewhere one will see someone say something like, these CPUs are not best for gaming! Well, oh my, what a surprise, I could never have guessed. :D

    In the future though, who knows. Fancy a full D-day simulator with thousands of players? 10 to 20 years from now, CPUs like this might be the norm.
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    It is exactly what I said. If we don't have a proper test bed for a unique product like this, then the results we are going to provide are not going to be representative of the true potential of a CPU like this.

    Sites will need to update their benchmarks suites, or propose new review systems.
  • Gideon - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Great article overall. The Fabric Power part was the most interesting one! Though you might want to check The Stilt's comments regarding that:

    https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/2990wx-review...
    and:
    https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/2990wx-review...
  • Icehawk - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Ian, for in progress articles can they please be labelled that way? I would rather wait for the article to be complete than read just a few pages and have to check back hoping it has been updated.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Ian, can you add C-ray to the multithreaded testing mix please? Becoming quite a popular test these days as it can scale to hundreds of threads. Just run at 8K res using the sphract scene file with a deep recursion depth (at least 8), to give a test that's complicated enough to last a decent amount of time and push out to main RAM a fair bit aswell.
  • abufrejoval - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Ok, I understand it we are all enjoying this pay-back moment: Intel getting it on the nose for trying to starve AMD and Nvidia by putting chipsets and GPUs into surplus transistors from process shrinks, transistors that couldn’t do anything meaningful for Excel (thing is: Spreadsheets would actually be ideal for multi-cores even GPGPU, you just need to rewrite them completely…)

    But actually, this article does its best to prepare y’all for the worst: Twice the cores won’t be twice the value, not this time around, nor the next… or the one after that.

    Please take a moment and consider the stark future ahead of us: From now on PCs will be worse than middle class smartphones with ten cores, where it’s cheaper to cut & paste more cores than to think of something useful.
  • KAlmquist - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    I'm not sure AMD would have bothered with the 2990WX if it weren't for the Intel Core i9 7980XE. With 18 cores, the 7980XE beats the 16 core Threadripper 2950X pretty much across the board. On the other hand, if you running software that scales well across lots of cores--and you probably are if you're considering shelling out the money for a 7980XE--the 32 core 2990WX will be faster, for about $100 less.

    These are niche processors; I doubt either of them will sell in enough volume to make a significant difference to the bottom line at Intel or AMD. My guess is that both the 2990WX and the 7980XE were released more for the bragging rights than for the sales revenue they will produce.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now