F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Updated 3DMark CPU profile offering a fresh benchmark for processor evaluation.

Updated 3DMark CPU profile offering a fresh benchmark for processor evaluation.

Updated 3DMark CPU profile offering a fresh benchmark for processor evaluation.

I
Irontaildragon
Member
Find
163
10-03-2016, 06:50 AM
#1
This report presents new CPU performance data aimed at providing a more balanced view beyond single or multi-thread metrics. It evaluates scores across various configurations—ranging from 1 to 16 threads on an 8-core processor—to assess how well the benchmark captures real-world usage patterns. The results highlight trends in scaling behavior and suggest potential hardware versus software influences. Further analysis is needed to clarify whether observed performance aligns with Intel or AMD architectures, as well as factors like cache size, memory speed, and inter-thread dependencies.
Reply
Reply
I
Irontaildragon
10-03-2016, 06:50 AM #1

This report presents new CPU performance data aimed at providing a more balanced view beyond single or multi-thread metrics. It evaluates scores across various configurations—ranging from 1 to 16 threads on an 8-core processor—to assess how well the benchmark captures real-world usage patterns. The results highlight trends in scaling behavior and suggest potential hardware versus software influences. Further analysis is needed to clarify whether observed performance aligns with Intel or AMD architectures, as well as factors like cache size, memory speed, and inter-thread dependencies.

Reply
Reply
L
lNa0
Member
Find
239
10-06-2016, 07:01 AM
#2
I've had a bit more time to run this on more systems. Following is a summary of my observations based on core-clock normalised results: It seems quite stable, scores typically within 1% run to run. It doesn't seem to scale at all with ram speed (tested 2400 to 4000 dual channel on 10600k). It does seem to scale well with CPU clock - when running single thread there can be a small difference from halving the clock, which increases score/clock by possibly 2%. No difference observed running multi-threaded. Rocket Lake scores about 20% more per clock than Comet Lake where not limited elsewhere Core/thread scaling isn't linear with scaling dropping off as they increase. It isn't Cinebench in that respect. Running threads = cores is one point where there is a drop in relative perf scaling. Above that you're into HT/SMT so a drop is expected, but still below ideal scaling. I'm seeing potentially ~17% contribution from HT on Comet Lake/Skylake-X with the caution of the non-ideal scaling described above. I don't feel able to give values for other architectures without running more (core reduced) tests, which I don't plan to do. It probably doesn't use AVX-512. Skylake-X didn't perform any better than Comet Lake, and the Rocket Lake uplift is probably from general IPC increases with the new architecture. The mobile Zen 3 I have is about 5% behind Rocket Lake. Desktop version should do better from having more cache. Overall I think this is a more meaningful benchmark to the average gamer than Cinebench, but it is also more complicated to compare scores since it isn't a single number. As a weakness, it doesn't seem to show any ram bandwidth scaling which we know many games do have. It is also questionable how representative the thread scaling is compared to any particular game, and it will vary from game to game anyway.
Reply
Reply
L
lNa0
10-06-2016, 07:01 AM #2

I've had a bit more time to run this on more systems. Following is a summary of my observations based on core-clock normalised results: It seems quite stable, scores typically within 1% run to run. It doesn't seem to scale at all with ram speed (tested 2400 to 4000 dual channel on 10600k). It does seem to scale well with CPU clock - when running single thread there can be a small difference from halving the clock, which increases score/clock by possibly 2%. No difference observed running multi-threaded. Rocket Lake scores about 20% more per clock than Comet Lake where not limited elsewhere Core/thread scaling isn't linear with scaling dropping off as they increase. It isn't Cinebench in that respect. Running threads = cores is one point where there is a drop in relative perf scaling. Above that you're into HT/SMT so a drop is expected, but still below ideal scaling. I'm seeing potentially ~17% contribution from HT on Comet Lake/Skylake-X with the caution of the non-ideal scaling described above. I don't feel able to give values for other architectures without running more (core reduced) tests, which I don't plan to do. It probably doesn't use AVX-512. Skylake-X didn't perform any better than Comet Lake, and the Rocket Lake uplift is probably from general IPC increases with the new architecture. The mobile Zen 3 I have is about 5% behind Rocket Lake. Desktop version should do better from having more cache. Overall I think this is a more meaningful benchmark to the average gamer than Cinebench, but it is also more complicated to compare scores since it isn't a single number. As a weakness, it doesn't seem to show any ram bandwidth scaling which we know many games do have. It is also questionable how representative the thread scaling is compared to any particular game, and it will vary from game to game anyway.

Reply
Reply