Our Office and Science 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, artificial intelligence, and AVX accelerated code.

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

Office Tests

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

GIMP likes fast single core performance, and so the Core i9 wins here.

 

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

Agisoft is a mix of variable threaded workloads, so a good balanced system works best. Intel's $500 option is faster than AMD's $500 option here, with two fewer cores.

 

AI Benchmark

One of the longest time requests we’ve had for our benchmark suite is AI-related benchmark, and the folks over at ETH have moved their popular AI Benchmark from mobile over PC. Using Intel’s MKL and Tensorflow 2.1.0, we use version 0.1.2 of the benchmark which tests both training and inference over a variety of different models. You can read the full scope of the benchmark here.

This is one of our new tests in the database, and we are still gaining data for it.

AI Benchmark (ETH) Combined

AIBench is a new test here, covering both training and inference. In the breakdown of results, we noticed that the faster processors were actually slower, scoring a lower result. We believe this is down to the lower bandwidth/core afforded by the 10c design against the 6c design.

 

Accelerated Science Tests

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

3D Particle Movement v2.1 (with AVX)

No real surprises in our 3DPM tests.

 

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 one where the Core i9 performs worse than the Core i7 in the multithreaded test, despite being better on the single threaded test. We again put this down to memory bandwidth. We need to update this test to the latest version of y-Cruncher, which has additional optimizations for Zen 2 processors, but also to increase the digit count in our MT test.

Poking Power: Does Intel Really Need 250W for 10 Cores? (Yes) CPU Performance: Rendering Tests
Comments Locked

220 Comments

View All Comments

  • arashi - Sunday, May 24, 2020 - link

    Replacing Stewart with xx does not a clone account make.

    Try again.
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    Good catch XD
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    You're talking past yourself.

    Sure, it's impressive what Intel's disaster management engineers managed to pull out the wreckage of their failure at 10nm. Their failure at 10nm was an engineering failure too, though, and they still haven't managed to backport their 10nm-planned architecture to 14nm.

    In other words, those engineering failures are the only reason they had to build this crazy nonsense - of which you express such admiration - in the first place.
  • extide - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    This is not HEDT
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    He's still reading from the 2016 Intel playbook :D
  • Icehawk - Saturday, May 23, 2020 - link

    I care because I like silent machines and use fanless PSUs. I can’t afford to blow 250-300W of the power budget on the CPU when I am limited to 450W, the small difference in real world gaming isn’t worth popping for a higher power PSU that brings with it fan noise. I should be able to run my 3900X with a nV 3070 with what I have, I don’t think I could with this i9.

    If power budget isn’t a concern then it’s down to brand preference, usage mix, etc to me. I have an intel 8700 as well, at the time I felt that was the best CPU choice, when I needed another new machine a few months ago the 3900 was - I still feel it would be today for me.

    YMMV
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    Cool, another person who thinks their personal views on a topic outweigh all others and is psychologically projecting that onto the reviewer. This is how 90% of disinformation works now...
  • prophet001 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I'm curious as to why this only has 16 pcie lanes into the CPU. How much does running your high performance SSD through the PCH or running your GPU in x8 mode affect performance?
  • GreenReaper - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Conveniently, there is an article (almost) about that: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15720/intel-ghost-c...
  • azfacea - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    with intel DIY PC marketshare being well below 50% and 10th gen itself having to compete with 9th, 8th, 7th, with supply shortage and everything I doubt these new LGA1200 motherboards can reach 10% of DIY PC which means the

    " ... 44+ entrants ranging from $150 all the way up to $1200 ..."

    are all massive cash burning operations that would never make sense in a million years w/- intel "development funding". they are literally squandering billions of dollars that they took from ripping of the customers. intel is so stupid, gouging its customers like this and then squandering the money for what ?? LGA 1200 has the option to have pcie 4 by the time its irrelevant ? my god WTF is going on there.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now