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 taken test data from all of my old testing as well, where I've run the same benchmarks on the same OS and SSD, hence why there are many data points to choose from. I have adjusted several of the graphs to have a narrower band of data showing to more easily see the difference now. Unfortunately the even older data (pre Core 2) is before my time at AnandTech.

    Regarding the J1800/J1900 motherboards, the two that I hurried in for testing were unfortunately limited in the GPU aspect and a third one I have since received is also in the same boat. Due to the hurried nature of getting the data from the initial release (as well as other testing on hand) I had perhaps wrongly assumed that all J1800/J1900 motherboards were in the same boat.

    I am shifting my test stations around somewhat this week, so when I come back from Computex I will have more of a low power/DRAM testing setup alongside the higher power systems I normally test. If you want to see anything specific, please feel free to email.
    Reply
  • edwpang - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    It's definitely makes better sense than current review. As someone has already, using 1250w PS on this low end setup is kindly uselessly. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Truecrypt link seems like a bad idea right now, since the official Truecrypt site is in a terrible state of limbo where nobody can figure out whether it's discontinued by the devs or been hacked. Benchmarks for 7.1a are relevant, but 7.2 is a gutted, useless pile of crap. Just saying. Reply
  • A5 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    It's good thing the bench is 7.1a then? Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Ha! I thought about taking the data out given that I had already uploaded almost all it before that announcement was made. However 7.1a is still viable and I still have the installer, so it might still be relevant if the installer still floats around in cyberspace. I somehow doubt we will ever get a full explanation from the developers on why they took it down, though there are many theories about it. Reply
  • Runamok81 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Typo, second to last sentence. platgorm Reply
  • someeeguy - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Ian, in the "dGPU Benchmarks with ASUS HD7970" portion of your review, it would have been interesting to see some Mantle results on these low power CPUs. Reply
  • JBVertexx - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I think the value in having a socket solution is less about providing an upgrade path and more about lower carrying costs in the entire supply chain.

    If you look at having 4 CPU combinations over lets say 4 motherboard options, having a BGA solution means that you need to source and stock 16 different items. With a socket solution, that cuts your inventory and carrying cost down to 8 items.

    The economics of this are huge. It impacts motherboard manufacturers, system builders, and businesses. It impacts the amount of up front investment required by every organization in the supply chain, and it impacts the inventory costs (or carrying capital).

    It especially impacts motherboard manufacturers, who must actually purchase the CPU in a BGA solution in order to sell a motherboard.

    In the face of those compelling economics, having an upgrade path is really small potatoes.
    Reply
  • marvee - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    The understanding of those economics could be the experience of Rory Read, from his time with Lenovo. Reply
  • Hrel - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Pretty disappointing you guy didn't include a CPU with HD4600 on it in the gaming benchmarks. Why compare to last generation's hardware? Perhaps to show AMD in as favorable a light as possible? hmmmmm..... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now