Stock CPU Performance: System Tests

Our System Test section focuses significantly on real-world testing, user experience, with a slight nod to throughput. In this section we cover application loading time, image processing, simple scientific physics, emulation, neural simulation, optimized compute, and 3D model development, with a combination of readily available and custom software. For some of these tests, the bigger suites such as PCMark do cover them (we publish those values in our office section), although multiple perspectives is always beneficial. In all our tests we will explain in-depth what is being tested, and how we are testing.

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

Application Load: GIMP 2.10.4

One of the most important aspects about user experience and workflow is how fast does a system respond. A good test of this is to see how long it takes for an application to load. Most applications these days, when on an SSD, load fairly instantly, however some office tools require asset pre-loading before being available. Most operating systems employ caching as well, so when certain software is loaded repeatedly (web browser, office tools), then can be initialized much quicker.

In our last suite, we tested how long it took to load a large PDF in Adobe Acrobat. Unfortunately this test was a nightmare to program for, and didn’t transfer over to Win10 RS3 easily. In the meantime we discovered an application that can automate this test, and we put it up against GIMP, a popular free open-source online photo editing tool, and the major alternative to Adobe Photoshop. We set it to load a large 50MB design template, and perform the load 10 times with 10 seconds in-between each. Due to caching, the first 3-5 results are often slower than the rest, and time to cache can be inconsistent, we take the average of the last five results to show CPU processing on cached loading.

AppTimer: GIMP 2.10.4

The CNL platform here does particularly well in loading software, which correlates with what I felt actually using the system - it felt faster than some Core i7 notebooks I've used. This might be down to the GPU acting on the display however. But it doesn't explain the extreme regression when we fix the clock speed.

FCAT: Image Processing

The FCAT software was developed to help detect microstuttering, dropped frames, and run frames in graphics benchmarks when two accelerators were paired together to render a scene. Due to game engines and graphics drivers, not all GPU combinations performed ideally, which led to this software fixing colors to each rendered frame and dynamic raw recording of the data using a video capture device.

The FCAT software takes that recorded video, which in our case is 90 seconds of a 1440p run of Rise of the Tomb Raider, and processes that color data into frame time data so the system can plot an ‘observed’ frame rate, and correlate that to the power consumption of the accelerators. This test, by virtue of how quickly it was put together, is single threaded. We run the process and report the time to completion.

FCAT Processing ROTR 1440p GTX980Ti Data

At stock speeds, both of our CNL and KBL chips score within half a second of each other. At fixed frequency, CNL comes out slightly ahead.

3D Particle Movement v2.1: Brownian Motion

Our 3DPM test is a custom built benchmark designed to simulate six different particle movement algorithms of points in a 3D space. The algorithms were developed as part of my PhD., and while ultimately perform best on a GPU, provide a good idea on how instruction streams are interpreted by different microarchitectures.

A key part of the algorithms is the random number generation – we use relatively fast generation which ends up implementing dependency chains in the code. The upgrade over the naïve first version of this code solved for false sharing in the caches, a major bottleneck. We are also looking at AVX2 and AVX512 versions of this benchmark for future reviews.

For this test, we run a stock particle set over the six algorithms for 20 seconds apiece, with 10 second pauses, and report the total rate of particle movement, in millions of operations (movements) per second. We have a non-AVX version and an AVX version, with the latter implementing AVX512 and AVX2 where possible.

3DPM v2.1 can be downloaded from our server: 3DPMv2.1.rar (13.0 MB)

3D Particle Movement v2.1

When AVX isn't on show, the KBL processor takes a lead, however it is worth nothing that at fixed frequency both CNL and KBL perform essentially the same. 

3D Particle Movement v2.1 (with AVX)

When we crank on the AVX2 and AVX512, there is no stopping the Cannon Lake chip here. At a score of 4519, it beats a full 18-core Core i9-7980XE processor running in non-AVX mode which scores 4185. That's insane. Truly a big plus in Cannon Lake's favor.

Dolphin 5.0: Console Emulation

One of the popular requested tests in our suite is to do with console emulation. Being able to pick up a game from an older system and run it as expected depends on the overhead of the emulator: it takes a significantly more powerful x86 system to be able to accurately emulate an older non-x86 console, especially if code for that console was made to abuse certain physical bugs in the hardware.

For our test, we use the popular Dolphin emulation software, and run a compute project through it to determine how close to a standard console system our processors can emulate. In this test, a Nintendo Wii would take around 1050 seconds.

The latest version of Dolphin can be downloaded from https://dolphin-emu.org/

Dolphin 5.0 Render Test

Both CPUs perform roughly the same at fixed frequency, however KBL has a slight lead at stock frequencies, likely due to its extra 200 MHz and ability to keep that frequency regardless of what's running in the background.

DigiCortex 1.20: Sea Slug Brain Simulation

This benchmark was originally designed for simulation and visualization of neuron and synapse activity, as is commonly found in the brain. The software comes with a variety of benchmark modes, and we take the small benchmark which runs a 32k neuron / 1.8B synapse simulation, equivalent to a Sea Slug.


Example of a 2.1B neuron simulation

We report the results as the ability to simulate the data as a fraction of real-time, so anything above a ‘one’ is suitable for real-time work. Out of the two modes, a ‘non-firing’ mode which is DRAM heavy and a ‘firing’ mode which has CPU work, we choose the latter. Despite this, the benchmark is still affected by DRAM speed a fair amount.

DigiCortex can be downloaded from http://www.digicortex.net/

DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

At a fixed frequency, both processors perform the same, but at stock frequencies the lower DRAM latency means that the Cannon Lake CPU only improves a little bit, whereas the Kaby Lake adds another 50% performance.

y-Cruncher v0.7.6: Microarchitecture Optimized Compute

I’ve known about y-Cruncher for a while, as a tool to help compute various mathematical constants, but it wasn’t until I began talking with its developer, Alex Yee, a researcher from NWU and now software optimization developer, that I realized that he has optimized the software like crazy to get the best performance. Naturally, any simulation that can take 20+ days can benefit from a 1% performance increase! Alex started y-cruncher as a high-school project, but it is now at a state where Alex is keeping it up to date to take advantage of the latest instruction sets before they are even made available in hardware.

For our test we run y-cruncher v0.7.6 through all the different optimized variants of the binary, single threaded and multi-threaded, including the AVX-512 optimized binaries. The test is to calculate 250m digits of Pi, and we use the single threaded and multi-threaded versions of this test.

Users can download y-cruncher from Alex’s website: http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/

y-Cruncher 0.7.6 Single Thread, 250m Digitsy-Cruncher 0.7.6 Multi-Thread, 250m Digits

y-Cruncher is another AVX-512 test, and in both ST and MT modes, Cannon Lake wins. Interestingly in MT mode, CNL at 2.2 GHz scores better than KBL at stock frequencies.

Agisoft Photoscan 1.3.3: 2D Image to 3D Model Conversion

One of the ISVs that we have worked with for a number of years is Agisoft, who develop software called PhotoScan that transforms a number of 2D images into a 3D model. This is an important tool in model development and archiving, and relies on a number of single threaded and multi-threaded algorithms to go from one side of the computation to the other.

In our test, we take v1.3.3 of the software with a good sized data set of 84 x 18 megapixel photos and push it through a reasonably fast variant of the algorithms, but is still more stringent than our 2017 test. We report the total time to complete the process.

Agisoft’s Photoscan website can be found here: http://www.agisoft.com/

Agisoft Photoscan 1.3.3, Complex Test

KBL takes a big lead here at stock frequencies, while at fixed frequencies the results are similar. We might be coming up against the power difference here - the KBL system has a higher steady state power limit.

CPU Performance: SPEC2006 at 2.2 GHz Stock CPU Performance: Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

129 Comments

View All Comments

  • eva02langley - Sunday, January 27, 2019 - link

    Even better...

    https://youtu.be/osSMJRyxG0k?t=1220
  • AntonErtl - Sunday, January 27, 2019 - link

    Great Article! The title is a bit misleading given that it is much more than just a review. I found the historical perspective of the Intel processes most interesting: Other reporting often just reports on whatever comes out of the PR department of some company, and leaves the readers to compare for themselves with other reports; better reporting highlights some of the contradictions; but rarely do we se such a pervasive overview.

    The 8121U would be interesting to me to allow playing with AVX512, but the NUC is too expensive for me for that purpose, and I can wait until AMD or Intel provide it in a package with better value for money.
  • RamIt - Sunday, January 27, 2019 - link

    Need gaming benches. This would make a great cs:s laptop for my daughter to game with me on.
  • Byte - Monday, January 28, 2019 - link

    Cannonlake, 2019's Broadwell.
  • f4tali - Monday, January 28, 2019 - link

    I can't believe I read this whole review from start to finish...
    And all the comments...
    And let it sink in for over 24hrs...

    But somehow my main takeaway is that 10nm is Intel's biggest graphics snafu yet.

    (Well THAT and the fact you guys only have one Steam account!)
    ;)
  • NikosD - Monday, January 28, 2019 - link

    @Ian Cutress
    Great article, it's going to become all-time classic and kudos for mentioning semiaccurate and Charlie for his work and inside information (and guts)

    But really, how many days, weeks or even months did it take to finish it ?
  • bfonnes - Monday, January 28, 2019 - link

    RIP Intel
  • CharonPDX - Monday, January 28, 2019 - link

    Insane to think that there have been as many 14nm "generations" as there were "Core architecture" generations before 14nm.
  • ngazi - Tuesday, January 29, 2019 - link

    Windows is snappy because there is no graphics switching. Any machine with the integrated graphics completely off is snappier.
  • Catalina588 - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link

    @Ian, This was a valuable article and it is clipped to Evernote. Thanks!

    Without becoming Seeking Alpha, you could add another dimension or two to the history and future of 10nm: cost per transistor and amortizing R&D costs. At Intel's November 2013 investor meeting, William Holt strongly argued that Intel would deliver the lowest cost per transistor (slide 13). Then-CFO Stacey Smith and other execs also touted this line for many quarters. But as your article points out, poor yields and added processing steps make 10nm a more expensive product than the 14nm++ we see today. How will that get sold and can Intel improve the margins over the life of 10nm?

    Then there's amortizing the R&D costs. Intel has two independent design teams in Oregon and Israel. Each team in the good-old tick-tock days used to own a two-year process node and new microarchitecture. The costs for two teams over five-plus years without 10nm mainstream products yet is huge--likely hundreds of millions of dollars. My understanding is that Intel, under general accounting rules, has to write off the R&D expense over the useful life of the 10nm node, basically on a per chip basis. Did Intel start amortizing 10nm R&D with the "revenue" for Cannon Lake starting in 2017, or is all of the accrued R&D yet to hit the income statement? Wish I knew.

    Anyway, it sure looks to me like we'll be looking back at 10nm in the mid-2020s as a ten-year lifecycle. A big comedown from a two-year TickTock cycle.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now