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

  • Pjotr - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Closing thoughts typos: Ryzen 580X3D and Ryzen 700. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Thanks! Reply
  • mode_13h - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Thanks for the review!

    Could you please add the aggregates, in the SPEC 2017 scores? There's usually a summary chart that has an average of the individual benchmarks, and then it often has the equivalent scores from more CPUs/configurations than the individual test graphs contain. For example, see the Alder Lake review:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t...
    Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    TechSpot / Hardware Unboxed show that to complete a Blender job the 13900K takes 50% more total system energy than does the 7950X. Intel completing a Cinebench job takes 70% more energy. Meaning heat in the room. And that's with the Intel chip thermal throttling instantly on even the best cooling.

    Looking at AT's "Power" charts here, which list the Intel chip as "125W" and AMD as "170W", many readers will get EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE impression.

    Sure, you mention the difficulties in comparing TDPs etc, and compare this gen Intel to last gen etc but none of that "un-obscures" the totally erroneous Intel vs AMD picture you've conveyed.

    ESPECIALLY when your conclusion says they're "very close in performance" !! BAD JOB, AT. The worst I've seen here in a very long time. Incomprehensibly bad.
    Reply
  • gezafisch - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Cope harder - watch Der8auer's video showing that the 13900k can beat any chip at efficiency with the right settings - https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    We go into the subject of power consumption at multiple points and with multiple graphs, including outlining the 13900K's high peak power consumption in the conclusion.

    https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17601/130...

    Otherwise, the only place you see 125W and 170W are in the specification tables. And those values are the official specifications for those chips.
    Reply
  • boeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Not true. You have those insanely misleading "TDP" labels on every CPU in the legend of every performance comparison chart. This paints a very misleading picture of "competitive" performance, whereas performance at iso-power (e.g. normalized per watt, based on total system power consumption measured at the outlet) would be much more enlightening. Reply
  • boeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    *per watt-hour (not per watt)

    [summed over the duration of the benchmark run]
    Reply
  • dgingeri - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Is it just me, or does the L1 cache arrangement seem a bit odd? 48k data and 32k instruction for the P cores and 32k data and 64k instruction on the e-cores. Seems a bit odd to me. Reply
  • Otritus - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Golden/Raptor Cove has a micro-op cache for instructions. 4096 micro-ops is about equal to 16Kb of instruction cache, which is effectively 48Kb-D + 48Kb-I. I don’t remember whether Gracemont has a micro-op cache. However, it doesn’t have hyperthreading, so maybe it just needs less data cache per core. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now