Upgrading from an Intel Core i7-2600K: Testing Sandy Bridge in 2019
by Ian Cutress on May 10, 2019 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Sandy Bridge
- Overclocking
- 7700K
- Coffee Lake
- i7-2600K
- 9700K
CPU Performance: Web and Legacy Tests
While more the focus of low-end and small form factor systems, web-based benchmarks are notoriously difficult to standardize. Modern web browsers are frequently updated, with no recourse to disable those updates, and as such there is difficulty in keeping a common platform. The fast paced nature of browser development means that version numbers (and performance) can change from week to week. Despite this, web tests are often a good measure of user experience: a lot of what most office work is today revolves around web applications, particularly email and office apps, but also interfaces and development environments. Our web tests include some of the industry standard tests, as well as a few popular but older tests.
We have also included our legacy benchmarks in this section, representing a stack of older code for popular benchmarks.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
WebXPRT 3: Modern Real-World Web Tasks, including AI
The company behind the XPRT test suites, Principled Technologies, has recently released the latest web-test, and rather than attach a year to the name have just called it ‘3’. This latest test (as we started the suite) has built upon and developed the ethos of previous tests: user interaction, office compute, graph generation, list sorting, HTML5, image manipulation, and even goes as far as some AI testing.
For our benchmark, we run the standard test which goes through the benchmark list seven times and provides a final result. We run this standard test four times, and take an average.
Users can access the WebXPRT test at http://principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/
WebXPRT 2015: HTML5 and Javascript Web UX Testing
The older version of WebXPRT is the 2015 edition, which focuses on a slightly different set of web technologies and frameworks that are in use today. This is still a relevant test, especially for users interacting with not-the-latest web applications in the market, of which there are a lot. Web framework development is often very quick but with high turnover, meaning that frameworks are quickly developed, built-upon, used, and then developers move on to the next, and adjusting an application to a new framework is a difficult arduous task, especially with rapid development cycles. This leaves a lot of applications as ‘fixed-in-time’, and relevant to user experience for many years.
Similar to WebXPRT3, the main benchmark is a sectional run repeated seven times, with a final score. We repeat the whole thing four times, and average those final scores.
Speedometer 2: JavaScript Frameworks
Our newest web test is Speedometer 2, which is a accrued test over a series of javascript frameworks to do three simple things: built a list, enable each item in the list, and remove the list. All the frameworks implement the same visual cues, but obviously apply them from different coding angles.
Our test goes through the list of frameworks, and produces a final score indicative of ‘rpm’, one of the benchmarks internal metrics. We report this final score.
Google Octane 2.0: Core Web Compute
A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google. Version 2.0 of the test performs the best part of two-dozen compute related tasks, such as regular expressions, cryptography, ray tracing, emulation, and Navier-Stokes physics calculations.
The test gives each sub-test a score and produces a geometric mean of the set as a final result. We run the full benchmark four times, and average the final results.
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Core Web Compute
Even older than Octane is Kraken, this time developed by Mozilla. This is an older test that does similar computational mechanics, such as audio processing or image filtering. Kraken seems to produce a highly variable result depending on the browser version, as it is a test that is keenly optimized for.
The main benchmark runs through each of the sub-tests ten times and produces an average time to completion for each loop, given in milliseconds. We run the full benchmark four times and take an average of the time taken.
3DPM v1: Naïve Code Variant of 3DPM v2.1
The first legacy test in the suite is the first version of our 3DPM benchmark. This is the ultimate naïve version of the code, as if it was written by scientist with no knowledge of how computer hardware, compilers, or optimization works (which in fact, it was at the start). This represents a large body of scientific simulation out in the wild, where getting the answer is more important than it being fast (getting a result in 4 days is acceptable if it’s correct, rather than sending someone away for a year to learn to code and getting the result in 5 minutes).
In this version, the only real optimization was in the compiler flags (-O2, -fp:fast), compiling it in release mode, and enabling OpenMP in the main compute loops. The loops were not configured for function size, and one of the key slowdowns is false sharing in the cache. It also has long dependency chains based on the random number generation, which leads to relatively poor performance on specific compute microarchitectures.
3DPM v1 can be downloaded with our 3DPM v2 code here: 3DPMv2.1.rar (13.0 MB)
x264 HD 3.0: Older Transcode Test
This transcoding test is super old, and was used by Anand back in the day of Pentium 4 and Athlon II processors. Here a standardized 720p video is transcoded with a two-pass conversion, with the benchmark showing the frames-per-second of each pass. This benchmark is single-threaded, and between some micro-architectures we seem to actually hit an instructions-per-clock wall.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
213 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Sunday, May 12, 2019 - link
I've done some horrendous posts when I used my phone to make a comment somewhere. Mostly because my phone is trained to my German texting habits and not my English commenting habits. And trying to mix them leads to sub par results in both areas, so I mostly stick to using my phone for texting and my PC and laptop for commenting. But sometimes I have to write something via my phone and it makes a beautiful mess if I'm not careful.Death666Angel - Sunday, May 12, 2019 - link
Well, laptops and desktops (with monitors) are in a different category anyway, at least that's how I see it. :-)I work with a 13.3" laptop with a 1440p resolution and 150% scaling. It's not fun, but it does the job. The advantage of the larger screen real estate with a 15" or 17" laptop is outweight by the size and weight increase. I've also done work on 1024x768 monitors and it does the job in a pinch. But I've tried to upgrade as soon as the new technology was established, cheap and good enough to make it worth it without having to pay the early adopter fee or fiddle around to get it to work. Even before Win7 made it a breeze to have multiple windows in an orderly grid, I took full advantage of a multi window and multi program workflow for research, paper/presentation writing, editing and media consumption. So it is a bit surprising to see someone like Ian, a tech enthusiast with a university doctorate be so late to great tech that can really make life easier. :D
Showtime - Saturday, May 11, 2019 - link
Great article. Was hoping to see all the CPU's tested (my 4770k), but I think it shows enough. This isn't the 1st article showing that lesser CPU's can run close to the best CPU's when it come to 4k gaming. Does that look to change any time soon? I was thinking I should upgrade this year, but would like to know if I should be shooting for an 8 core, or if a 6 will be a decent enough upgrade.Consoles run slower 8 core proc's that are utilized more efficiently. At some point won't pc games do the same?
Targon - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link
There is always the question about what you do on your computer, but I wouldn't go less than 8 cores(since 4-core has become the base on the desktop, and even laptops should never be sold with only 2 cores IMO). If you look at the history, when AMD wasn't competitive and Intel stopped trying to actually innovate, quad-core was all you saw on the desktop, so game developers didn't see a reason to support more threads(even though it would have made sense). Once Ryzen came out with 8 cores, and Intel finally responded, you have to expect that every game developer will design with the potential that players will have 8+ core processors, so why not design with that in mind?Remember, a program that is properly multi-threaded in design will work on lower-core processors, but will scale up well when processors with more cores are being used. So going forward, quad-core would work, but 8 or more threads WILL feel a lot better, even for overall use.
CaedenV - Saturday, May 11, 2019 - link
This was a fascinating article! And what I am seeing in the real world seems to reflect this.For the most part, the IPC for general use has improved, but not by a whole lot. But if doing anything that hits the on-chip GPU, or requiring any kind of decrypt/encrypt, then the dedicated hardware in newer chips really makes a big difference.
But at the end of the day, in real-world scenarios, the CPU is simply not the bottle neck for most people. I do a lot of video ripping (all legally purchased, and only for personal use), and the bottleneck is squarely on the Blu-Ray drive. I recently upgraded from a 4x to a 10x drive, and the performance bump was exactly what was expected. Getting a faster CPU or GPU will not help there.
I do a bit of video editing, and the bottle-neck there is still almost always in storage. The 1gbps connection to the NAS, and the 1GBps connection to my RAID0 of SSDs.
I do a bit of gaming at 4k, and again the bottleneck there is squarely on the GPU (GTX1080), and as your tests show, at lower resolution my chip will be slower than a new chip... but still faster than the 60-120fps refresh of the monitor.
The real reason for an upgrade simply isn't the CPU for most people. The upgrade is the chipset. Faster/more RAM, M.2 SSDs, more available throughput for expansion cards, faster USB/USB-C ports, and soon(ish) 10gig Ethernet. These are the things that make life better for the enthusiast and the normal user; and the newer CPUs are simply more capable of taking advantage of all the extra throughput, where Sandy Bridge would perhaps choke when dealing with these newer and faster interfaces that are not available to it.
All that said; I am still not convinced to upgrade. Every previous computer was simply broken, or could not do something after 2-3 years, so an upgrade was literally necessary. But now... my computer is some 8 years old now, and I am amazed at the fact that it still does it all, and does it relatively quickly. Without it being 'broken' it is hard to justify dropping $1000+ into a new build. I mean... I want to upgrade. But I also want to do some house projects, and replace a car, and do stuff with the kids... *sigh* priorities. Part of me wishes that it would break to give me proper motivation to replace it.
webdoctors - Saturday, May 11, 2019 - link
Great timing, I've been using the same chip for 7 or 8 years now and never felt the need to upgrade until this year, but I will upgrade end of this year. DDR4 finally dropped in price and my GTX1070TI I think is getting throttled when the CPU ain't overclocked.atomicWAR - Saturday, May 11, 2019 - link
Gaming at 4K with a i7 3930K @ 4.2ghz (4.6ghz capable when needed) with 2 GTX 1080s...I was planning a new build this year but after reading this I may hold off even longer.wrkingclass_hero - Sunday, May 12, 2019 - link
I've got a 3930K as well. I was planning on upgrading to Threadripper 3 when that comes out, but if it gets delayed I may wait a bit longer for a 5mm Threadripper.mofongo7481 - Saturday, May 11, 2019 - link
I'm still using a sandy bridge i5 2400 overclocked to 3.6Ghz. Still playing modern stuff @ 1080p and pretty enjoyable.Danvelopment - Sunday, May 12, 2019 - link
I think the conclusion is slightly off for gaming, from what I could see it's not that the newer processors were only better higher resolutions, it's that the newer systems were better able to keep the GPU fed with data, resulting in a higher maximum frame rate.So at lower resolutions/quality settings, when the GPUs could let loose they could achieve much higher FPS.
My conclusion from the results wouldn't be to keep it for higher res gaming, but to keep it for gaming if you're still using a 60Hz display (which I am). I bet if you tuned quality settings for all of the GPUs to run at 60 FPS your results would sit pretty close at any resolution.
I'm currently running an E5-2670 for my gaming machine with quad channel DDR3 (4x8GB) and a 1070. That's the budget upgrade path I'd probably recommend at 60Hz.