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 an all-around test, one hopes that PCMark should be able to shine a light into this analysis. The end result is that PCMark says Intel should be ahead by around 8%.

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)

I like this Chromium test, given that it probes a lot of areas within a system. The Intel G5400 wins here again, scoring 6.9 compiles per day, compared to 5.9 for the AMD 200GE.

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: Cloud Gate, Sky Diver, Fire Strike Ultra, and Time Spy.

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

In all the tests except Time Spy, Intel takes an 11-12% lead over AMD, while in Time Spy that increases to 20%.

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 OverallGeekbench 4 - MT Overall

CPU Performance: Rendering Tests CPU Performance: Encoding Tests
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • Irata - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    The price push happened after the release - but do check Anandtech graphics cards reviews - they do have a tendency of mentioning current street / retail prices for both AMD and nVidia cards, which is how it should be.

    This is from the RX580 review:

    "The biggest challenge right now is that GTX 1060 prices have come down to the same $229 spot just in time for the RX 500 series launch, so AMD doesn’t have a consistent price advantage"
  • yannigr2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Assimilator is a known Intel Nvidia hardcore fan. Ignore him.
  • The_Assimilator - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Yes, pointing out facts makes me a fanboy. You a Trump voter by any chance?
  • sonny73n - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    @The_Assimiator

    Are we not supposed to complain about the misleading pricing - one is Manufacturer’s SUGGESTED Retail Price and the ACTUAL price from the link provided by this article?
    If I want to build a cheap office system NOW, should I take this article into consideration despite the huge price differences?
    What’s special about the G5400 that its price has tripled due to “shortage”? At $182.68 currently from the link, is there no better CPU from Intel I can get for that price? Is Intel the only CPU manufacturer?
    What are you trying to achieve by calling us name? What our criticism to AT has to do with you?

    I’ve been restraining myself from criticizing AT too much. AT articles are slow to produce already. I wouldn’t want AT writers quit/fired then we’ll have less to read, even they’re written poorly.
  • kkilobyte - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    What would have made the most sense is not writing such an article in the first place, then.

    I take Ian's own words on this: "I'm a big advocate of building a system piece by piece with the best you can afford at the time".

    And at the (current) time, it seems that one simply cannot afford the G5400 for $64 (except maybe out of pure luck). This should have been, taken into account into the conclusion, or at least underlined.
  • AnnoyedGrunt - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Neither of these CPUs makes much sense. The G5400 isn't readily available (sold out on Newegg or only available from re-sellers for $100, as is the G5500 or G5600).

    Once you are spending $100, it makes much more sense to get the Ryzen 2200G for the same price that typically outperforms both of these (or only loses by a little to the G5400 in office type of tasks). The 2200G actually looks pretty decent as an IGP solution, and is a much better platform once you go to a dedicated GPU as well.

    I'd personally work a few extra hours and save up for the 2200G over either of these options.

    -AG
  • Valantar - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Despite all the complaints here of comparing products at very different price points (retail, not MSRP), I would still like to see a more complete test suite run on the overclocked 200GE, especially the gaming tests.

    Also, is iGPU overclocking possible on this chip, or are iGPU frequencies locked? It would also be very interesting for you to part out example builds of this vs. the G5400 and the Ryzen 3 2200G, to see the difference in actual system cost.
  • br83taylor - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Are those power figures correct? If you compare Ryzen 3 2200g for 20W and Ryzen 3 1300X at 58W. A third of the power but same 4C4T configuration.
  • Zoolook13 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    For what it's worth, in Sweden the prices match pretty well 695 SEK for a 220GE vs 759 SEK for a G5400.
  • Zoolook13 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Sorry that ended up in the wrong place, edit button ftw...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now