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

  • ByteMag - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    I'm wondering why the 3300X wasn't in the DigiCortex benchmark? This $120 dollar 4c/8t banger lays waste to the selected lineup. Or is it too much of a foreshadowing of how Zen 3 may perform? I guess benchmarks can sometimes be like a box of chocolates.
  • ozzuneoj86 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Just a request, but can you guys consider renaming the "IGP" quality level something different? The site has been doing it for a while and it kind of seems like they may not even know why at this point. Just change it to "Lowest" or something. Listing "IGP" as a test, when running a 2080 Ti on a CPU that doesn't have integrated graphics is extremely confusing to readers, to say the least.

    Also, I know the main reason for not changing testing methods is so that comparisons can be done (and charts can be made) without having to test all of the other hardware configs, but I have one small request for the next suite of tests (I'm sure they'll be revised soon). I'd request that testing levels for CPU benchmarks should be:

    Low Settings at 720P
    Max Settings at 1080P
    Max Settings at 1440P
    Max Settings at 4K

    (Maybe a High Settings at 1080P thrown in for games where the CPU load is greatly affected by graphics settings)

    Drop 8K testing unless we're dealing with flagship GPU releases. It just seems like 8K has very little bearing on what people are realistically going to need to know. A benchmark that shows a range from 6fps for the slowest to 9fps for the fastest is completely pointless, especially for CPU testing. In the future, replacing that with a more common or more requested resolution would surely be more useful to your readers.

    Often times the visual settings in games do have a significant impact on CPU load, so tying the graphical settings to the resolution for each benchmark really muddies the waters. Why not just assume worst case scenario performance (max settings) for each resolution and go from there? Obviously anti-aliasing would need to be selected based on the game and resolution, with the focus being on higher frame rates (maybe no or low AA) for faster paced games and higher fidelity for slower paced games.

    Just my 2 cents. I greatly appreciate the work you guys do and it's nice to see a tech site that is still doing written reviews rather than forcing people to spend half an hour watching a video. Yeah, I'm old school.
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    Agreed 99% with this (especially that last part, all hial the written review) - but I'd personally say it makes more sense for the CPU reviews to be limited to 720p Low, 1080P High and 1440P Max.

    My theory behind that:
    720p Low gives you that entirely academic CPU-limited comparison that some people still seem to love. I don't get it, but w/e.
    1080p High is the kind of setting people with high-refresh-rate monitors are likely to run - having things look good, but not burning frames for near-invisible changes. CPU limiting is likely to be in play at higher frame rates. We can see whether a given CPU will get you all the way to your refresh-rate limit..
    1440p Max *should* take you to GPU-limited territory. Any setting above this ought to be equally limited, so that should cover you for everything, and if a given CPU and/or game doesn't behave that way then it's a point of interest.
  • dickeywang - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    With more and more cores being added to the CPU, it would've been nice to see some benchmarks under Linux.
  • MDD1963 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Darn near a full 2% gain in FPS in some games! Quite ...uhhh..... impressive! :/
  • MDD1963 - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    Doing these CPU gaming comparisons at 720P is just as silly as when HardOCP used to include 640x480 CPU scaling...; 1080P is low enough, go medium details if needed.
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, May 26, 2020 - link

    Personally agreed here. It just gives more fodder to the "15% advantage in gaming" trolls.
  • croc - Wednesday, May 20, 2020 - link

    It would be 'nice' if the author could use results from the exact same stack of chips for each test. If the same results cannot be obtained from the same stack, then whittle the stack down to those chips for which the full set of tests can be obtained. I could understand the lack of results on newly added tests...

    For a peer review exercise it would be imperative, and here at Anandtech I am sure that there are many peers....
  • 69369369 - Thursday, May 21, 2020 - link

    Overheating and very high power bills happens with Intel.
  • Atom2 - Thursday, May 21, 2020 - link

    Dear Ian, You must be the only person on the planet that goes to such lengths not to use AVX, that you even compare Intel's AVX512 instructions to a GPU based OpenCL, just to have a reason not to use it. Consequently you only have AMD win the synthetic benchmarks, but all real world math is held by Intel. Additionally, all those synthetics, which are "not" compiled with Intel C++. Forget it... GCC is only used by Universities. The level of bias towards AMD is becoming surreal.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now