** = Old results marked were performed with the original BIOS & boost behaviour as published on 7/7.

Benchmarking Performance: CPU 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.

We're investigating the PCMark results, which seem abnormally high.
Update: We can't do a direct comparison due to the lack of a RX460 for PCMark for the moment

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 - Fire Strike Ultra3DMark Physics - Time Spy3DMark 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

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
Comments Locked

447 Comments

View All Comments

  • catavalon21 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    The 2600K had legs as good as any modern CPU, but I don't agree that "most" people are still using a CPU 6 to 8 years old.
  • yeeeeman - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    Most people are still on Sandy bridge, ivy bridge or haswell. All of these are nothing compared to what 3900x offers and also 3700x. That is the main idea here. There is no point in buying 9900k just to pay a lot more for 5% fps increase at 1080p. That is nitpicking at its best. You are much better off with a 3900x. You get 2950x mt performance, you get more than enough gaming performance and you get lower power consumption than 9900k.
  • Namisecond - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Intel had better marketing, better suppliers, better chipsets, better networking, etc. AMD having a better CPU just doesn't seem to be enough.
  • just4U - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Better chipsets? Amd just released the x570 what does the 390 chipset offer that the x570 does not?
  • Meteor2 - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link

    "He stated in article it took amd 15 YEARS to get this good CPU finally out and sounded like he was impressed by that?" No. That's why it was awarded a Silver.
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    not according to Maxiking, catavalon21... starting to sound like Maxiking, is another HStewart .....
  • shabby - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    Where is Hstewart anyway? Lol
  • Oliseo - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    "But not when the raw performance is tconsidered. It is a hypothetical scenario"

    How can you take someone seriously when they say this on an article that provides the evidence they claim is "hypothetical".

    You simply can't. Either they think you're stupid, or they don't know they are.

    It's one or the other. What do you reckon it is.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Please don't take our current numbers as any sign of overclockability - we didn't have enough time for it and motherboard firmwares are still getting updated.
  • Maxiking - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Your numbers on par with the rest of the world, so you maxed out those chips.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now