CPU Tests: Simulation

Simulation and Science have a lot of overlap in the benchmarking world, however for this distinction we’re separating into two segments mostly based on the utility of the resulting data. The benchmarks that fall under Science have a distinct use for the data they output – in our Simulation section, these act more like synthetics but at some level are still trying to simulate a given environment.

DigiCortex v1.35: link

DigiCortex is a pet project for the visualization of neuron and synapse activity in the brain. The software comes with a variety of benchmark modes, and we take the small benchmark which runs a 32k neuron/1.8B synapse simulation, similar to a small slug.

The results on the output are given as a fraction of whether the system can simulate in real-time, so anything above a value of one is suitable for real-time work. The benchmark offers a 'no firing synapse' mode, which in essence detects DRAM and bus speed, however we take the firing mode which adds CPU work with every firing.

The software originally shipped with a benchmark that recorded the first few cycles and output a result. So while fast multi-threaded processors this made the benchmark last less than a few seconds, slow dual-core processors could be running for almost an hour. There is also the issue of DigiCortex starting with a base neuron/synapse map in ‘off mode’, giving a high result in the first few cycles as none of the nodes are currently active. We found that the performance settles down into a steady state after a while (when the model is actively in use), so we asked the author to allow for a ‘warm-up’ phase and for the benchmark to be the average over a second sample time.

For our test, we give the benchmark 20000 cycles to warm up and then take the data over the next 10000 cycles seconds for the test – on a modern processor this takes 30 seconds and 150 seconds respectively. This is then repeated a minimum of 10 times, with the first three results rejected. Results are shown as a multiple of real-time calculation.

(3-1) DigiCortex 1.35 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

For users wondering why the 5800X wins, it seems that Digicortex prefers single chiplet designs, and the more cores the better. On the Intel side, the 10700 pulls a slight lead.

Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12: Link

Another long standing request for our benchmark suite has been Dwarf Fortress, a popular management/roguelike indie video game, first launched in 2006 and still being regularly updated today, aiming for a Steam launch sometime in the future.

Emulating the ASCII interfaces of old, this title is a rather complex beast, which can generate environments subject to millennia of rule, famous faces, peasants, and key historical figures and events. The further you get into the game, depending on the size of the world, the slower it becomes as it has to simulate more famous people, more world events, and the natural way that humanoid creatures take over an environment. Like some kind of virus.

For our test we’re using DFMark. DFMark is a benchmark built by vorsgren on the Bay12Forums that gives two different modes built on DFHack: world generation and embark. These tests can be configured, but range anywhere from 3 minutes to several hours. After analyzing the test, we ended up going for three different world generation sizes:

  • Small, a 65x65 world with 250 years, 10 civilizations and 4 megabeasts
  • Medium, a 127x127 world with 550 years, 10 civilizations and 4 megabeasts
  • Large, a 257x257 world with 550 years, 40 civilizations and 10 megabeasts

DFMark outputs the time to run any given test, so this is what we use for the output. We loop the small test for as many times possible in 10 minutes, the medium test for as many times in 30 minutes, and the large test for as many times in an hour.

(3-2a) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 65x65, 250 Yr(3-2b) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 129x129, 550 Yr(3-2c) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 257x257, 550 Yr

Dolphin v5.0 Emulation: Link

Many emulators are often bound by single thread CPU performance, and general reports tended to suggest that Haswell provided a significant boost to emulator performance. This benchmark runs a Wii program that ray traces a complex 3D scene inside the Dolphin Wii emulator. Performance on this benchmark is a good proxy of the speed of Dolphin CPU emulation, which is an intensive single core task using most aspects of a CPU. Results are given in seconds, where the Wii itself scores 1051 seconds.

(3-3) Dolphin 5.0 Render Test

CPU Tests: Office and Science CPU Tests: Rendering
Comments Locked

210 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link

    This site posted articles about overclocking that were done wildly, without true stability testing and with reckless amounts of voltage and you're going to now pretend that turning on XMP for RAM is some kind of terrible reckless matter?
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link

    The thing is... if you wish to take a stand about JEDEC and company standards that's fine. Just don't post a lot of nonsensical reasons for it, like "Most users don't know how to plug in a computer so we're going to skip the plug for this review".
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link

    Personally, here is all I'd say on the subject, were I to be taking your stand:

    'We use JEDEC standards for RAM speed because those are what AMD, Intel, and other CPU makers use to rate their chips. Anything beyond JEDEC is overclocking and is therefore running out of spec.

    Although motherboard makers frequently choose to run CPUs out of spec, such as by boosting to the turbo speech and keeping it there indefinitely, and by including XMP profiles for RAM with lists of 'compatible' RAM running beyond JEDEC, it is our belief that the best place for a CPU's maximum supported RAM speech spec to come from is from the CPU's creator.

    If anyone is unhappy about this standard we suggest lobbying the CPU makers to be more aggressive about officially supporting faster RAM speeds, such as by formally adopting XMP as a spec that is considered to be within spec for a CPU.

    To compliment the goal of our JEDEC stance, are going to only create reviews using motherboards that fully comply with the turbo spec of vendors and/or disable all attempts by board makers to game that spec. If a board cannot be brought into full compliance we will refuse to post a review of it and any mention of it with the possible exception of a list of boards that run out of spec, are non-compliant.'
  • Qasar - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link

    Oxford Guy you seem to be quite unhappy about this review, and by other posts, the site as well, so if this site is so bad, WHY do you keep coming here ?
  • Spunjji - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link

    He's certainly not his own best advocate in that regard.

    I'd always defend someone's right to criticise aspects of something they otherwise like, but sometimes it goes a bit far.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link

    'but sometimes it goes a bit far.'

    Extreme vagueness + ad hom = extra fail.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, January 27, 2021 - link

    @Oxford Guy - 🙄

    1) That wasn't an ad-hominem - if you're going to do the "master debater" thing, at least learn to distinguish between commentary on the person and their argument.

    2) Re: "extreme vagueness" - that was my personal opinion stated as a colloquialism. I don't owe anyone an annotated list of every comment you made, metric measurements of precisely how far they went, an objectively-defined scale of how far is too far, and a peer-reviewed thesis on the precise moment at which you exceeded that point.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link

    Ad hom... how unsurprising.

    To answer your question — This site is not bad. This site is good because people are able to give their honest opinions instead of living in a disgusting echo chamber like on ArsTechnica or Slashdot.

    Perhaps that's where YOU should go instead.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link

    why would i go there ? this site is top notch when it comes to reviews and comp hardware news. "This site is good because people are able to give their honest opinions " yes, but sometimes, some go to far with the whining and complaining :-)
  • trenzterra - Friday, January 22, 2021 - link

    Would be good if we could have some temperatures to compare as well. I used to buy the mid-end non-K Intel CPUs since I don't overclock but I always ended up with temperatures about 10 degrees higher than what most people report. With my latest build (ok, not that new now that it's actually a i5-6600k), I went for the K variant and temperatures are much better and in line with what most users report.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now