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

  • Silver47 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    They are in the graphs, what are you smoking? Reply
  • Novaguy - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I think using a weaker card for the dgpu would also have been interesting. Maybe something like an r7 270, 7750 or 7770.

    Also, what about Mantle benchmarks?
    Reply
  • Novaguy - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I meant r7 250, not 270... can't seem to edit via mobile. Reply
  • V900 - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    No, no Mantle benchmarks... It's useless, and only serves to clutter the article.

    Hardly anybody cared about Mantle when it was announced... And now that we know the next version of Direct X is coming, the only people that care the slightest, are a handful of AMD fanbois.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    You're entitled to your opinion. Let's look at it this way - DirectX 12 won't be here for another 18 months. Also, Mantle has been shown to perform better than AMD's own implementation of DX11 (and sometimes faster than NV's as well) and also helps with lower performing CPUs.

    The following link only shows the one game, but it should be enough to highlight the potential benefit of Mantle on a comparatively weak architecture such as Jaguar:

    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Ma...

    If you didn't need to upgrade your CPU to play the latest and greatest, I think you'd care, too.
    Reply
  • formulav8 - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    If Mantle was from NVidia or Intel you would be a bigger stooge than anyone AMD. Reply
  • Gauner - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I think it would be far more useful for this weak systems to have a different set of game tests.

    No one will buy one of those to play tomb raider or bioshock but I'm guessing some people would consider buying one if you could play for example league of legends or dota2 at minimum and 720/1080p.

    I understand it would mean an extra effort but right now the gaming tests don't really tell anything useful nor do they add useful information to other reviews by having an extra comparison.

    Just taking into account steam games(since they are the easier ones to get data about) in the top 5 most played games daily you always have: dota2, CS:GO and TF2. Those 3 games used to run(poorly, 800x600, low detail, 20-30fps) in the old Intel GMA4500M so in my opinion they have a lot of people potentially interested in them and would run well enough in low power systems to give a useful comparison between chips.
    Reply
  • res057 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Tests with high end games and cpu intensive tasks for processors such as these is like Car and Driver putting a Prius through quarter-mile test and comparing the results with a Corvette. Pointless. Reply
  • Gauner - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    I can understand the logic behind CPU intensive tasks, even if you wont use this kind of CPUs to compress video with x264 you can watch the results and get a realistic estimation on the performance difference because the test is the same for both weak CPUs and high end CPUs.

    Problem with the gaming tests is that the comparison is with settings completely different from the high end tests so no parallelism there and with a set of games that no one would think to play in weak systems so there is no useful info given.
    I cant look at the results and say "since tomb raider at 1280x1024 with low graphics ran at 20fps I guess league of legends will run at 1080p with medium graphics and 35fps", there are too many different points to make a comparison(AAA engine vs engine designed for low power computers, different resolution, completely different poly count and texture sizes, ...).
    Reply
  • takeship - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    I'm curious why no comparison with the old E-450/E-2000 Jaguar chips. Not so much for the CPU performance, but for the GPU improvements going to GCN. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now