CPU Benchmark Performance: Simulation

Simulation and Science have a lot of overlap in the benchmarking world. 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.

In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, how data is transferred and by what mechanism is pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security.

We are using DDR5 memory on the Core i9-13900K, the Core i5-13600K, the Ryzen 9 7950X, and Ryzen 5 7600X, as well as Intel's 12th Gen (Alder Lake) processors at the following settings:

  • DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 13th Gen
  • DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
  • DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen

All other CPUs such as Ryzen 5000 and 3000 were tested at the relevant JEDEC settings as per the processor's individual memory support with DDR4.

Simulation

(3-1) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 65x65, 250 Yr

(3-1b) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 129x129, 550 Yr

(3-1c) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 257x257, 550 Yr

(3-2) Dolphin 5.0 Render Test

(3-3) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 10K Trains

(3-3b) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 10K Belts

(3-3c) Factorio v1.1.26 Test, 20K Hybrid

(3-4) John The Ripper 1.9.0: Blowfish

(3-4b) John The Ripper 1.9.0: MD5

Outside of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D's dominance in our Factorio testing, the rest of the results paint an interesting picture; the Core i9-13900K excels in simulations. Whether that's the addition of eight more efficiency cores over the Core i9-12900K, or that it's also partly due to increased core clock speeds, if it works, it works. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is also a solid contender, however, and it tears the competition a new one in our new John the Ripper MD5 test.

CPU Benchmark Performance: Science CPU Benchmark Performance: Rendering And Encoding
POST A COMMENT

169 Comments

View All Comments

  • mode_13h - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    "The new instruction cache on Gracemont is actually very unique. x86 instruction encoding is all over the place and in the worst (and very rare) case can be as long as 15 bytes long. Pre-decoding an instruction is a costly linear operation and you can’t seek the next instruction before determining the length of the prior one. Gracemont, like Tremont, does not have a micro-op cache like the big cores do, so instructions do have to be decoded each time they are fetched. To assist that process, Gracemont introduced a new on-demand instruction length decoder or OD-ILD for short. The OD-ILD generates pre-decode information which is stored alongside the instruction cache. This allows instructions fetched from the L1$ for the second time to bypass the usual pre-decode stage and save on cycles and power."

    Source: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/6102/intels-gracemo...
    Reply
  • Sailor23M - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Interesting to see Ryzen 5 7600X perform so well in excel/ppt benchmarks. Why is that so? Reply
  • Makste - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Thank you for the review. So Intel too, is finally throwing more cores and increasing frequencies to the problem these days, which increases heat and power usage in turn. AMD too, is a culprit of this practice but has not gone to these lengths as Intel. 16 cores versus supposedly efficiency cores. What is not happening? Reply
  • ricebunny - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    It would be a good idea to highlight that the MT Spec benchmarks are just N instantiations of the single thread test. They are not indicative of parallel computing application performance. There are a few dedicated SPEC benchmarks for parallel performance but for some reason they are never included in Anandtechs benchmarks. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    "There are a few dedicated SPEC benchmarks for parallel performance but for some reason they are never included in Anandtechs benchmarks."

    They're not part of the actual SPEC CPU suite. I'm assuming you're talking about the SPEC Workstation benchmarks, which are system-level benchmarks and a whole other kettle of fish.

    With SPEC, we're primarily after a holistic look at the CPU architecture, and in the rate-N workloads, whether there's enough memory bandwidth and other resources to keep the CPU cores fed.
    Reply
  • wolfesteinabhi - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    its strange to me that when we are talking about value ...especially for budget constraint buyers ... who are also willing to let go of bleeding edge/performance ... we dont even mention AM4 platform.

    AM4 is still good ..if not great (not to say mature/stable) platform for many ..and you can still buy a lot of reasonably price good procs including 5800X3D ...and users have still chance to upgrade it upto 5950X if they need more cpu at a later date.
    Reply
  • cowymtber - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Burning hot POS. Reply
  • BernieW - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Disappointed that you didn't spend more time investigating the serious regression for the 13900K vs the 12900K in the 502.gc_r test. The single threaded test does not have the same regression so it's a curious result that could indicate something wrong with the test setup. Alternately, perhaps the 13900K was throttling during that part of the test or maybe E cores are really not good at compiling code. Reply
  • Avalon - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    I had that same thought. Why publish something so obviously anomalous and not even say anything about it? Did you try re-testing it? Did you accidentally flip the scores between the 12th and 13th gen? There's no obvious reason this should be happening given the few changes between 12th and 13th gen cores. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    "Disappointed that you didn't spend more time investigating the serious regression for the 13900K vs the 12900K in the 502.gc_r test."

    We still are. That was flagged earlier this week, and re-runs have produced the same results.

    So at this point we're digging into matters a bit more trying to figure out what is going on, as the cause is non-obvious. I'm thinking it may be a thread director hiccup or an issue with the ratio of P and E cores, but there's a lot of different (and weird) ways this could go.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now