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

    Then build one yourself.
  • tmnvnbl - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    How did you measure power numbers for core/uncore? Did these validate with e.g. wall measurements? The interconnect power study is very interesting, but I would like to see some more methodology there.
  • seafellow - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    I second the ask...how was measurement performed? How can we (the readers) have confidence in the numbers without an understanding of how the numbers were generated?
  • GreenReaper - Wednesday, August 15, 2018 - link

    Modern CPUs measure this themselves. AMD itself has boasted of the number of points at which they measure power usage throughout its new CPUs. Check out 'turbostat' in the 'linux-cpupower' package - or grab a copy of HWiNFO that will show it.
  • Darty Sinchez - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    This here article be awesome. I is so ready to buy. But, me no have enough money so I wait for it sale.
  • perfmad - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    So is the 2990WX bottlenecking in Handbrake because of the indirect memory access for some cores? Would be interesting to know if that bottleneck can be worked around by running multiple encodes simultaniously, The latest Vidcoder beta uses the handbrake core and has recently added support for multiple simultanous encodes. Would be really appreciated if you had time to look into that.

    Also do you share the source file and presets you use for the handbrake tests so we can run them on our hardware to get a comparison? My CPU isn't one you've tested.

    Thanks for the review thus far.
  • AlexDaum - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    I think, the problem with the memory bandwidth cannot be easily fixed, as it isn't a Problem, that one Process uses to much memory, but one core on one of the dies without memory controller, needs to access the infinity fabric to get Data. When all of the cores are active and want to fetch data from memory, it would cause contention on the IF Bus, which reduces the available memory bandwidth a whole lot and the core is just waiting for memory.
    This is just my speculation though, not based on facts, other than the bottleneck.
  • Aephe - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Those 2990WX Corona results! Can't wait to get a machine based on this baby! Holding up for TR2 release was worth it for me at least.
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    That benchmark result broke my graphing engine ! Had to start reporting it the millions.
  • melgross - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    It’s interesting. This reminds me of Bulldozer, where they made a bad bet with floating point (among some other things), and that held then back for years. This looks almost too specialized for most uses.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now