Real World Benchmarks

2D to 3D Rendering Agisoft PhotoScan v1.0: link

Agisoft Photoscan creates 3D models from 2D images, a process which is very computationally expensive. The algorithm is split into four distinct phases, and different phases of the model reconstruction require either fast memory, fast IPC, more cores, or even OpenCL compute devices to hand. Agisoft supplied us with a special version of the software to script the process, where we take 50 images of a stately home and convert it into a medium quality model. This benchmark typically takes around 15-20 minutes on a high end PC on the CPU alone, with GPUs reducing the time.

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Total Time

For Photoscan we see the incremental speedup with the i3 models, but the increased single thread speed of the i7 makes more of a difference.

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

For WinRAR, the increase in the threads makes the most difference here, moving from i5-4690 to i7-4675T.

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

FastStone is all about the single thread speed.

Video Conversion – Xilisoft Video Converter 7: link

The XVC test I normally do is updated to the full version of the software, and this time a different test as well. Here we take two different videos: a double UHD (3840x4320) clip of 10 minutes and a 640x266 DVD rip of a 2h20 film and convert both to iPod suitable formats. The reasoning here is simple – when frames are small enough to fit into memory, the algorithm has more chance to apply work between threads and process the video quicker. Results shown are in seconds and time taken to encode.

Xilisoft VC 7.5 Film CPU Only

Xilisoft VC 7.5 2x4K

Small frames prefer more single thread MHz, whereas the dual 4K frame conversion prefers threads.

Video Conversion – Handbrake v0.9.9: link

Handbrake is a media conversion tool that was initially designed to help DVD ISOs and Video CDs into more common video formats. The principle today is still the same, primarily as an output for H.264 + AAC/MP3 audio within an MKV container. In our test we use the same videos as in the Xilisoft test, and results are given in frames per second.

HandBrake v0.9.9 Film

HandBrake v0.9.9 2x4K

With Handbrake it would seem that it prefers actual cores rather than hyperthreading, given by the i5 and i7 being relatively close and 2x the i3.

The Haswell Refresh Processors CPU Performance: SYSMark and Scientific Benchmarks
POST A COMMENT

130 Comments

View All Comments

  • ilkhan - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    With 9-series, Intel is enabling Rapid Storage Technology 13, allowing UEFI support, RADI 0/1/5/10
    Think you meant RAID.
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    Interesting, I remember correcting that a couple of days ago in an edit. Might not have saved. Updated :) Reply
  • ahar - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    I await your correction in the conclusion with bated breath. ;) Reply
  • Bugfree - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    Reading the conclusions I agree that Intel is somehow underperforming, since...well...they can. No real challengers or competition from AMD at this point. I really hope this changes soon... Reply
  • schizoide - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    Exactly. Intel doesn't _need_ to release anything. They essentially have no competitors at the high-end space. AMD's CPUs can't even compete with the i3. Reply
  • nandnandnand - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link

    It would take a miracle to inject competition into the CPU market: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322247 Reply
  • Jaaap - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link

    We need that miracle.
    This "Haswell Refresh" is total nonsense. It is just shuffling a bit with names and frequencies.

    Where is the looooong overdue desktop quadcore with Iris Pro?
    Reply
  • ReaM - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link

    "AMD's CPUs can't even compete with the i3"

    I think you've read some other article, because A8-7600 destroys the equally priced i3 in most tests.

    The gaming benchmarks are skewed towards intel in this review because they've used 1280x1084 resolution on most gaming tests. Many of the games don't run well on full HD and intel.
    Reply
  • John3000 - Saturday, November 28, 2015 - link

    AMD CPU's like fx 8350 are beaten in some game by i3 by a very small margin but in most they are close to Core i5 and in many AAA Game are near to core i7 in performance. Reply
  • shorne21592159 - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    i have just changed to using amd apus after many years using intel chips .im really enjoying amd and what they are doing at the moment with lot of hope for the future and although not as fast as intels at moment they do the job at the moment well for me ,plus i seem to be able to overclock amd chips much more than an intel with less problems for some reason Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now