Real World Benchmarks

Video Conversion - x264 HD 3.03 Benchmark

Graysky's x264 HD test uses x264 to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.

x264 HD v3.03, 1st Pass

x264 HD v3.03, 2nd Pass

Encryption TrueCrypt v0.7.1a: link

TrueCrypt is an off the shelf open source encryption tool for files and folders. For our test we run the benchmark mode using a 1GB buffer and take the mean result from AES encryption.

TrueCrypt 7.1a AES

Compression – WinRAR 5.0.1: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totaling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second 720p videos.

WinRAR 5.01

Image Manipulation – FastStone Image Viewer 4.9: link

Similarly to WinRAR, the FastStone test us updated for 2014 to the latest version. FastStone is the program I use to perform quick or bulk actions on images, such as resizing, adjusting for color and cropping. In our test we take a series of 170 images in various sizes and formats and convert them all into 640x480 .gif files, maintaining the aspect ratio. FastStone does not use multithreading for this test, and thus single threaded performance is often the winner.

FastStone Image Viewer 4.9

AMD AM1 Kabini Part 2: The Competition and The Test CPU Performance: SYSMark and Scientific Benchmarks
POST A COMMENT

86 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I've adjusted most of the severe cases into graphs that are easier to read :) Reply
  • easp - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Better, but dude, the red bars stand out, and yet they represent something other than the focus of the article. Given the color pallet, I'd assume that the black bars were the least significant numbers, the background information, and yet, they actually represent the focal point of the article. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I originally have had blue for Intel and red for AMD. Black is the only other color I can add that doesn't look odd; if graphs start having three-plus colors then it just looks a little odd. It might be worth greying everything and just highlighting the important points without an Intel/AMD distinction except in the labelling for the future. Reply
  • edzieba - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    How about adding 'cores' to bars that are immediately relevant to the articke (e.g. an orange line in the centre of the bars for the socketed Kabinis and the Celerons). This would highlight the bars that are being compared directly, while still being in the context of all the other data, and keeping the expected blue/Intel red/AMD bar colouring intact. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    Thanks, that's much better. Reply
  • pjkenned - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Ian - good to see you had similar results as I did. The other bit is that the J1900 can be passively cooled while the AM1 chips need active coolers. That helps lower power consumption, noise and points of failure.

    I think I had benchmarks with the Raspberry Pi also - these are MUCH faster.
    Reply
  • buffhr - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Would have been nice if you could have included some hd video playback (1080p/720p/3D) and impressions. Reply
  • vesoljc - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I second this! Reply
  • nirolf - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    Me too! Should be fine, but what about 4K? Reply
  • BMNify - Saturday, May 31, 2014 - link

    "but what about 4K?"
    what about it!, it doesn't really exist for consumers, oh perhaps you mean pseudocolor UHD 2160p, or the real colour UHD-1 3840 pixels wide by 2160 tall at 10bit or 12bit per pixel content today as used by several ARM Cortex Soc
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now