CPU Performance: 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.

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

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

As a general mix of a lot of tests, the new processors from Intel take the top three spots, in order. Even the i5-9600K goes ahead of the i7-8086K.

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)

Pushing the raw frequency of the all-core turbo seems to work well in our compile test.

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

The older Ice Storm test didn't much like the Core i9-9900K, pushing it back behind the R7 1800X. For the more modern tests focused on PCs, the 9900K wins out. The lack of HT is hurting the other two parts.

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

CPU Performance: Rendering Tests CPU Performance: Encoding Tests
POST A COMMENT

277 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ian Cutress - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    Emn13: Base code with compiler optimizations only, such as those a non-CompSci scientist would use, as was the original intention of the 3DPM test, vs hand tuned AVX/AVX2/AVX512 code. Reply
  • just4U - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    The only problem I really have with the product is for the price it should have come with a nice fancy cooler like the 2700x which is in it's own right a stellar product at close to 60% of the cost. Not sure what intel's game plan is with this but It's priced close to a second gen entry threadripper and for it's cost you might as well just make the leap for a little more. Reply
  • khanikun - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    I'm the other way. I'd much rather they lower the cost and have no cooler. Although, Intel doesn't decrease the cost without the cooler, which sucks.

    I'm either getting a new waterblock or drilling holes in the waterblock bracket to make it fit. Well I just upgraded, so I'm not in the market for any of these procs.
    Reply
  • brunis.dk - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    no prayers for AMD? Reply
  • ingwe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    I don't see the value in it though I understand that this isn't sold as a value proposition--it is sold for performance. Seems to do the job it sets out to do but isn't spectacularly exciting to me. Reply
  • jospoortvliet - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    Given how the quoted prices ignore the fact that right now Intel CPU prices art 30-50% higher than MSRP, yes, nobody thinking about value for money buys these... Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Seriously though, I'm wondering about the handful of benchmarks that showed the i7 beating the i9 by significant amounts. 1-2% I assume is sampling noise in cases where the two are tied, but flipping through the article I saw a few where the i7 won by significant margins. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Certain benchmarks seem to be core-resource bound. In HT mode, certain elements of the core are statically partitioned, giving each thread half, and if only one thread is there, you still only get half. With no HT, a thread gets the full core to work with. Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    I'd love to see some low level data on the i5 vs i7 on that topic.

    If the i5 is only missing HT then the i7 without HT should score identically (more or less) with the i5 winning on occasion vs the HT enabled i7. I always figured there was a significant bit of idle resources (ALU pipelines) in the i5 vs the i7, HT allowed 100% (or as close as possible) usage of all of the pipelines.

    I wish Intel would release detailed info on that.
    Reply
  • abufrejoval - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Well I guess you should be able to measure, if you have the chips. My understanding has alway been, that i7/i5 differentiation is all about voltage levels with i5 parts needing too much voltage/power to pass the TDP restrictions rather than defective logic precluding the use of 'one hyperthread'. I find it hard to imagine managing defects via partitions in the register file or by disabling certain ALUs: If core CPU logic is hit with a defect it's dead, because you can't isolate and route around the defective part at that granularity. It's the voltage levels on the long wires that determine a CPUs fate AFAIK.

    It's a free choice between a lower clock and HT or the higher clock without HT at the binning point and Intel will determine the fate of a chips on sales opportunities rather than hardware. And it's somewhat similar with the fully enabled lower power -T parts and the high-frequency -K parts, which are most likely the same (or very similar) top tier bins, sold at two distinct voltage levels yet rather similar premium prices, because you trade power and clocks and pay premium for efficiency.

    Real chips defects can only be 'compensated' via cutting off cache blocks or whole cores, but again I'd tend to think that even that will be more driven by voltage considerations than 'hairs in the soup': With all this multi-patterning and multi-masking going on and the 3D structures they are lovingly creating for every FinFeT their control over the basic structures is so great, that it's mainly the layer alignment/conductivity that's challenging the yields.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now