** = 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

  • Korguz - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    Maxiking, and HOW LONG till intel gets the SAME treatment?? saying a processor uses x watts, but in reality uses 50 to 100 watts MORE isnt FRAUD ??? hell you confine intels cpus to the watts they state, and their performance goes DOWN THE TOILET !!!. again .. you KEEP saying AMD is a fraud, but you STILL refuse to admit, that intel is a fraud as well..

    does this guy even acknowlege the issue with intel and the amount of power they " say " their cpus use, and how much power they REALLY use ??
  • Korguz - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    further.. intel doesnt do any marketing, cause they DON'T want the general average user to know the cpu they bought, uses MORE power then has been stated, THAT also is false advertising, come on maxiking, go after intel as well, the same same things you are accusing amd of...
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    You are uneducated, TDP doesn't mean power consumption but the amount of heat dissipated, it informs you how much of heat the cooler must be able to dissipate in order to keep the cpu cool enough to run.

    Get it? 1700x TDP was 95W yet there were tasks it managed to consume 120 or even 140w on stock settings. Like do you even watch reviews? It was the same with 2700w.

    but mimimimimimi AMD good mimimimimi Intel bad
  • Korguz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    sorry dude.. but YOU are uneducated, amd stays A LOT closer to its stated TDP then intel does, AT even did a review on it. power dissipated, also relates to power used. but it also doesnt help, that amd and intel both use the term TDP differently. either way.. intel uses more power then amd does.
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-pro...
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Again, TDP is not power consumption and it refers to a cooler.

    You are uneducated and fabricating because you are an amd fanboy. No one really cares about what is more accurate or not, because it does not say anything about power consumption of the chip.

    So keep living in your nice little bubble. It is not my fault that you and other sites have been thinking that TDP -> power consumption. I will share something new to you again.. Ever heard about that Frankenstein novel? Frankenstein in not the monster but the doctor, his surname..Shocking I KNOW!!!

    mimimimimimi AMD good mimimimimi Intel bad
  • Korguz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    again.. TDP, or Thermal Design Power, does relate to power consumption and how much is needed to keep something cool. You are uneducated and fabricating because you are an intel fanboy. i also notice you like to throw personal insults around when someone disagrees with you, or to try to make your opinion valid. so you keep living in your nice little bubble as well, not my fault you dont understand TDP relates to how much power something uses, as the more power a product uses, the more heat it creates, and then, needs to be removed.

    mimimimimimi intel good mimimimimi amd bad
  • Maxiking - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    What you just did it is just sad. it shows you are little kid.

    TDP is not power consumption, if TDP - 100% power consumption, it would mean that 100% of the electrical energy is converted into thermal energy so yeah which is impossible it would mean perpetuum mobile you twat, actually the cpu would be net positive, it would convert 100% of electrical energy into thermal whilst managing to perform another task at no energy cost.

    Breaking the laws of physics just because of your AMD fanboyism
  • Korguz - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    i said it RELATES to power consumption, what, you cant read ?? cant see passed your intel bias ?? the more power something uses, the more heat it generates, and there for, the more needs to be dissipated, and i also never said anything about 100% power consumption, pulling words and making things up to try to make your self sound right ? And you are calling me names on top of that, who's the kid here ???
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    You are uneducated, TDP doesn't mean power consumption but the amount of heat dissipated, it informs you how much of heat the cooler must be able to dissipate in order to keep the cpu cool enough to run.

    Get it? 1700x TDP was 95W yet there were tasks it managed to consume 120 or even 140w on stock settings. Like do you even watch reviews? It was the same with 2700w.

    but mimimimimimi AMD good mimimimimi Intel bad
  • Qasar - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    hmmm doest really say amd is being fraudulent, just doesnt like the idea the chips might not boost, or run at what AMD says, but didnt mention fraud...

    and Korguz has a point.. WHY arent you commenting about the power intels cpus use, vs what intel says they use ?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now