AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Retail 8-Core CPU Benchmarks Leak Out, Crushes The Ryzen 7 5800X & Even Intel’s Core i7-12700K
New benchmarks of a retail AMD Ryzen 7 7700X 8-Core CPU have leaked within Geekbench 5 and CPU-z. The benchmarks show that AMD’s upcoming chip will be battling it out with Intel’s Core i7-12700K when it comes to single and multi-threaded performance.
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X 8-Core & Intel Core i7-12700K 12-Core $399 CPUs Battle It Out In Leaked Benchmarks
The latest benchmarks were published within the Geekbench 5 and CPU-z benchmark tests. Both of these benchmarks show a huge disparity in single and multi-core performance for the Ryzen 7 7700X CPU since the IPC uplift in CPU-z is rated at just +1% while the IPC uplift in Geekbench is at +14%. So we are getting a look at both, the worst-case and best-case scenarios of AMD’s 8-Core Zen 4 performance in these benchmarks.
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X 8 Core «Zen 4» Desktop CPU
The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X is an 8-core and 16-thread part. AMD positions this as the sweet spot for gamers and as such, the CPU will feature a base clock of 4.5 GHz and a boost clock of 5.4 GHz but at a lower 105W TDP (142W PPT). The CPU will get a 40 MB cache pool which consists of 32 MB L3 from the singular CCD &8 MB L2 from the Zen 4 cores.
AMD Ryzen 7000 ‘Raphael’ Desktop CPU Specs (Official):
| CPU Name | Architecture | Process Node | Cores / Threads | Base Clock | Boost Clock (SC Max) | Cache | TDP | Prices (TBD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 9 7950X | Zen 4 | 5nm | 16/32 | 4.5 GHz | 5.7 GHz | 80 MB (64+16) | 170W | $699 US |
| AMD Ryzen 9 7900X | Zen 4 | 5nm | 12/24 | 4.7 GHz | 5.6 GHz | 76 MB (64+12) | 170W | $549 US |
| AMD Ryzen 7 7700X | Zen 4 | 5nm | 8/16 | 4. 5 GHz |
5.4 GHz | 40 MB (32+8) | 105W | $399 US |
| AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | Zen 4 | 5nm | 6/12 | 4.7 GHz | 5.3 GHz | 38 MB (32+6) | 105W | $299 US |
Starting off with CPU-z, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X was running on the Gigabyte X670E AORUS Master motherboard and this is the retail variant. The CPU was running at 5.42 GHz all-core boost clocks & had an operating voltage of 1.152V with temperatures hovering around 71C. We don’t know if this was under load or what type of cooling was used. The maximum multiplier reported for the chip is 55.5x which leads to a 5.5 GHz peak frequency limit.
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X CPU has been benchmarked in CPU-z. (Image Credits: TUM_APISAK)
In single-core, the CPU scored 774 points and in multi-core, the chip scored 8381 points. Compared to its predecessor, the Ryzen 7 5800X, the new chip is 20% faster in single-thread and 27% faster in multi-threaded results.
The chip also comes close to the Intel Core i7-12700K in single-core with a 3 percent difference but loses out in multi-threaded tests with a -15% performance deficit.
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Core i9-13900K
Core i7-13700K
Core i5-13600K
Core i9-12900K
Core i7-12700K
Ryzen 9 7950X
Ryzen 7 7700X
Core i5-12600K
Ryzen 9 5950X
Ryzen 9 5900X
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 5 5600X
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
Core i9-13900K
Ryzen 9 7950X
Core i7-13700K
Ryzen 9 5950X
Core i9-12900K
Core i5-13600K
Core i7-12700K
Ryzen 9 5900X
Ryzen 7 7700X
Core i5-12600K
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 5 5600X
Next up, we have the Geekbench 5 benchmarks where the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X 8-Core CPU can be seen blazing ahead with an impressive 2209 points in single-core & 14459 points in the multi-core tests.
Here, the CPU is 32% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X, 19% faster than the Core i7-12700K, and also, 10% faster than the Core i7-13700K in single-threaded performance. In multi-core tests, the chip offers 40% better performance than the Ryzen 7 5800X and 3% better performance than the Core i7-12700K but loses to the Core i7-13700K by 27%.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Core i9-13900K
Ryzen 9 7950X
Ryzen 7 7700X
Ryzen 5 7600X
Core i9-13900
Core i9-12900KS
Core i7-13700K
Core i5-13600K
Core i9-12900K
Core i7-12700K
Core i5-12600K
Ryzen 9 5950X
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 9 5900X
Ryzen 5 5600X
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Core i9-13900K
Ryzen 9 7950X
Core i9-13900
Core i7-13700K
Core i9-12900KS
Core i9-12900K
Ryzen 9 5950X
Core i5-13600K
Ryzen 7 7700X
Core i7-12700K
Ryzen 9 5900X
Core i5-12600K
Ryzen 5 7600X
Ryzen 7 5800X
Ryzen 5 5600X
The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and the rest of the family will be launching alongside the next-gen AM5 platform and X670E motherboards on the 27th of September so stay tuned for more info as we are only a few days away from the grand launch.
News Sources: TUM_APISAK , Harukaze5719 , Benchleaks
Products mentioned in this post
CPU Test — Benchmark your CPU
This test (part of PerformanceTest), allows individual CPU tests to be run from 1 thread up to a specified number of threads. The test length, Maximum Number of threads and test iterations are configurable. Users also have the ability to concurrently log the temperature.
The Advanced CPU test allows users to run the following CPU tests individually.
- Integer Math
- Floating Point Math
- Prime Numbers
- Extended Instructions (SSE, AVX and FMA)
- Compression
- Encryption
- Sorting
- Physics
The results of all completed Advanced CPU Tests may be graphed and exported.
Software
- BurnInTest
- PerformanceTest
- OSForensics
- MemTest86
- WirelessMon
- Zoom Search Engine
- Free Software
Hardware
-
USB3.
0 Loopback Plugs
- USB2.0 Loopback Plugs
- PCIe Test Cards
- USB Power Delivery Tester
- Serial and Parallel Loopback Plugs
- USB Short Circuit Testers
Benchmarks
- CPU Benchmarks
- Video Card Benchmarks
- Hard Drive Benchmarks
- RAM Benchmarks
- PC Systems Benchmarks
- Android Benchmarks
- iOS / iPhone Benchmarks
- Software Marketshare
- Internet Bandwidth
About Us
- Company
- Contact Us
- The Press Room
-
Services
-
Store
-
Support
-
Forums
-
International
-
Disclaimer
-
Refunds
-
Privacy
-
Social
Copyright © 2022 PassMark® Software
Spider-Man Remastered CPU Benchmark | TechSpot
We’re back with another big Spider-Man Remastered benchmark, this time focusing on CPU performance.
Last week we threw 43 GPUs at the game to see which models performed the best in their respective price ranges, but noted at the time that CPU performance also appeared to be a real concern for this game, with very high utilization seen with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
Following that performance review, many readers reported seeing much lower performance than what was shown with the 5800X3D, and you were of course using a slower processor, but now we’re going to get a good look at just how much difference your CPU can make when it comes to frame rates in Spider-Man Remastered.
For this CPU benchmark test we’ll be using the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti and Game Ready display drivers 516.94. We’ll be testing at 1080p, but also 1440p and 4K, using a range of quality settings including the medium preset, very high, and then a ray tracing configuration using the high quality preset, so there’s loads of data to go over.
On the memory front, all CPUs have been tested using dual-rank, dual-channel DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, so it’s an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of memory performance.
That said, we have included a second configuration for the Core i9-12900K using DDR5-6400.
When compared to the GPU benchmark, we’ve tweaked our CPU pass, it’s very similar but we’ve included a few quick twitches with a web swing at the end. So with that let’s get into the results…
Benchmarks
Medium Quality 1080p, 1440p, 4K
First up we have the medium quality preset data at 1080p, and we’ll start from the top where we find the 12900K using DDR5-6400 memory allowing for 175 fps on average, which is a 17% improvement when compared to the DDR4-3200 configuration.
The 5800X3D which we used for the GPU benchmark is slower than the DDR5-enabled 12900K, trailing by a 7% margin with 162 fps on average. That said, it was 8% faster than the 12900K when using the same DDR4 memory.
As you might have expected, the Intel Alder Lake CPUs outperform the standard Zen 3 parts, but in such a CPU intensive game you might not have expected the 12600K to match the 5950X and the E-core disabled 12400 to come in ahead of the 12400F.
Quite surprisingly, the 11th-gen Core processors also performed really well as the 11900K can be seen matching the 5900X which isn’t unheard of, but half the time the 11900K ends up slower than the 10900K. The Core i7-11700K and Ryzen 7 5800X can also be seen neck and neck meaning the 12700K was 16% faster than AMD’s 8-core Zen 3 part when using the same memory.
The 5600X and 11600K are also found delivering a similar level of performance, though the 1% lows of the 6-core Zen 3 part were slightly stronger, and much stronger than the 10-core 10900K. It’s interesting to see the 5600X beating the 10900K and delivering almost 10% greater 1% low performance after all the talk of games needing more cores, especially in what appears to be one of the most CPU intensive games we’ve ever seen.
That’s not to say the 8, 12 and 16-core Zen 3 CPUs aren’t faster, they clearly are, but the 5600X had no issue delivering high refresh rate performance without a hitch.
Interestingly, the 4-core / 8-thread Core i3-12100 also managed to deliver perfectly playable smooth performance with 115 fps on average.
We played the game for about half an hour with this CPU just to see what it was like and the numbers don’t lie, the Core i3 was flawless despite a constant utilization of over 90% and often being maxed out.
It was also intriguing to see the i3-12100 beating the Core i7-10700K, Intel’s 10th-gen isn’t particularly impressive in this game despite working well enough.
The bottom half of the graph is dominated by AMD. The primary explanation is that we didn’t test many low-end or older Intel CPUs as it’s a serious pain in the backside. All the AMD CPUs tested here were done with a single test system using the MSI X570S Carbon Max motherboard. For Intel, we were forced to use three different test systems for the results shown, and if I wanted to go back to first-gen Ryzen we’d need yet another test system.
We already know parts such as the Core i5-7600K are done for, so we didn’t want to spend another day flogging that dead horse. So we’re not basing AMD here, rather we’re saying Intel older CPUs are too difficult and too slow to even bother with.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let’s proceed… the Ryzen 5 5500 and Ryzen 7 3800X and 5700G were all good for around 106 — 108 fps in our test, with similar 1% low performance. Then we have the Core i5-10400F roughly matching the Ryzen 5 3600, Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 5 5600G, all with around 100 fps on average.
The old Core i3-10105F which is basically the same as the 10100 managed to crack the 90 fps barrier, which is still very playable in this title and that put it alongside the Ryzen 3 5300G. Old Zen+ parts such as the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X performed poorly relative to more modern processors, but we’re still looking at 78 fps on average with 1% lows of 63 fps when paired with high quality memory.
The first-gen Ryzen CPUs which would be going up against Intel 7th-gen dropped below 60 fps for the 1% lows, so you’ll certainly notice some slow downs if you’re used to 60 fps-plus.
We’re not going to pour over the 1440p medium data as we’re still heavily CPU limited and therefore the data doesn’t change much.
We’re looking at very similar margins and around a 3% decline in performance at the high-end as the RTX 3090 Ti drops a few frames at the higher resolution, so let’s move on to 4K now…
The game becomes more GPU bound at 4K as expected, though this is only true when using a high-end CPU. Interestingly, the 5800X3D overtakes the Core i9-12000K here, even when pairing the Intel CPU with DDR5 memory. The margin is very small though, just a 3% win for the 5800X3D.
The Core i9-12900K was also 4% faster using the DDR5-6400 memory as opposed to DDR4-3200, so for those of you using a high-end GPU targeting high resolutions such as 4K, which we assume you’d do for a single player action adventure game, memory performance is far less of an issue.
The 5950X was similar to the 12600K and 11900K, pushing 130 fps while the 5900X was just 3 fps slower, matching the much cheaper 12400F, a personal favorite of ours.
Further down, we find the 5600X with 117 fps and although that only made it slightly faster than the 11400, it did outpace the 10900K.
The Core i3-12100 was again impressive with strong 1% low performance and 112 fps on average.
Below that we find the 10700K, 9900K and 10600K all delivering similar performance with just over 100 fps on average. The Ryzen 5 5500, Ryzen 7 3800X and 5700G also delivered a similar level of performance. Again, it’s not until we get to the Zen and Zen+ parts that performance starts to drop away.
Very High Quality — 1080p, 1440p, 4K
Moving to the very high quality preset, we’ll once again start with 1080p results. Once again, the 12900K using DDR5-6400 memory topped our chart, this time with 165 fps making it 7% faster than the 5800X3D and 17% faster than its DDR4-3200 configuration. That means when using the same DDR4 memory, the 5800X3D was actually 9% faster than the 12900K.
But it also means that the 12900K, 12700K and 12600K are all a good bit faster than the non-3D V-Cache Zen 3 processors, such as the 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X. The 8, 12 and 16-core Zen 4 processors all delivered basically the same result with the 5600X dropping off the pace a little to come in 6% slower, but again frame pacing was good.
Intel’s 11th-gen was again impressive and the 11400 game in just behind the 5600X, as did the 12th-gen Core i3-12100. The much older Intel’s 10th-gen wasn’t particularly impressive and the 10-core 10900K couldn’t even beat the 5600X.
Further down, we see that the Ryzen 5 5500 was able to beat the Core i5-10600K and the Ryzen 5 3600 matched the average frame rate of the Core i5-10400F, but delivered much stronger 1% lows. The Ryzen 5 5300G performed surprisingly well and easily outperformed the Core i3-10105F, particularly when looking at the 1% lows. At the very bottom of our graph we find the Zen and Zen+ processors with sub 60 fps 1% lows.
The 1440p data is very much CPU limited once again and therefore the results don’t change all that much. We see a bit of movement at the top end, but other than that the standings and margins are much the same to what was just shown at 1080p using the very high quality preset. This means for many of you with a mid-range to high-end GPU, lowering the quality settings won’t actually boost your frame rate when playing Spider-Man Remastered.
Most CPUs such as the Core i9-10900K dropped just 2fps when going from 1080p to 1440p, and then we saw just an 8 fps reduction from 1440p medium to very high, so you might as well crank up those visuals and enjoy the single player title in all of its glory.
Once we reach 4K the game becomes GPU limited, even with an extreme high-end graphics card such as the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti. We still see an improvement in 1% lows, but they’re not nearly as significant as what was shown when more CPU limited at lower resolutions such as 1080p and 1440p.
The 1% lows of the 12400F, for example, trailied the DDR5 enabled 12900K by just an 8% margin here whereas at 1440p that margin was 26%. The Zen 3 CPUs topped out at 108 fps which is just 2 fps less than that of the Intel CPUs, though we are seeing slightly slower 1% lows of up to 6 fps.
It’s worth noting that from the Core i3-12100 and up you’d have a hard time telling any of these configurations apart under these test conditions, which frankly we’d consider to be the most real-world testing shown so far for someone using an RTX 3090 Ti.
Closely following the 12100 we find the 11400, 10900K, 10700K and 9900K, all of which delivered highly playable performance. The Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5500 were also there, both delivering strong 1% low performance.
Then for around 90 fps the Ryzen 3 5300G, 3300X, 5600G, 10400F, 3600 and 3800X were all right around the mark. The Core i3-10105F did have some consistency issues, as did the Zen and Zen+ processors.
Enabling Ray Tracing
As you would expect, enabling ray tracing even with the slightly dialed down ‘high’ quality preset greatly reduces frame rates, even at 1080p. But as many have noted, this does increase CPU usage further. Given that these results might surprise you.
Despite the higher CPU usage, lower core count CPUs don’t suffer. The Core i3-12100, for example, was just 6% slower than the 12400F and you can attribute that to the difference in cache capacity rather than core count. It’s the same deal when looking at Zen 3 processors, the 5600X is now much closer to the 5800X, 5900X and 5950X, basically matching them.
Despite that, the DDR5-enabled Core i9-12900K runs away with the prize, delivering almost 20% more performance than the 5800X3D and a massive 36% improvement over its DDR4 configuration.
As far as we can tell, enabling ray tracing in this game significantly increases the amount of traffic crossing the PCI Express bus. It also increases the amount of RAM used and therefore the amount of data being shifted in and out of memory. So although CPU usage has increased, it appears as though memory bandwidth is the primary bottleneck for most processors.
Throwing more cores at the problem isn’t the solution, which is a bit surprising given the game will spread the load quite well across even 12 cores, but like most games it does appear to be primary thread dependent.
That means individual core performance is key and it’s why the 12900K is so fast relative to the 5950X, for example. It’s also why the 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X are all very similar, while the difference in performance between the 12th-gen Core processors can be largely attributed to L3 Cache capacity.
Looking at CPU utilization alone, we had expected the Core i3-12100 to crumble, but that wasn’t the case and in fact it comfortably beat the 10-core Core i9-10900K, suggesting that IPC is king here rather than core count, within reason of course.
More evidence of this can be seen with AMD’s APUs, the 5700G has 8-cores/16-threads but half the L3 cache of the Zen 3 CPU models such as the 5600X which were almost 20% faster. The 5300G halves its cache again and this is likely why the 5700G was 15% faster.
The older Zen and Zen+ processors aren’t particularly impressive when it comes to memory performance and like the APUs they also lack PCIe 4.0 support, which could be playing a role here. Despite packing 8-cores / 16-threads, the 1800X and 2700X really struggle in this title.
As was shown before, moving to 1440p from 1080p does little to change the margins and this was also true with ray tracing enabled. The Core i9-12900K DDR5 configuration was much faster than the DDR4 version, as well as AMD’s 5800X3D.
Then the rest of the results which were very heavily CPU limited remained almost the same.
Now as we move to 4K, the game becomes increasingly GPU limited at the high-end, but still very much CPU limited for the bulk of the results. The GPU limit at the high-end means the DDR5 configuration for the 12900K offered very little benefit over DDR4 and that the 5800X3D was able to roughly match its performance.
Then the Core i7-12700K and Zen 3 processors all delivered about the same level of performance, along with the 12600K and even the 12400F. The next tier down managed to maintain 60 fps for the 1% low and this included the 12100, 11900K, 11700K and 11600K.
The Ryzen 5 5500, Ryzen 7 3800X and Ryzen 5 3600 also managed to break the 60 fps barrier for the 1% lows. In fact, most of the CPUs tested delivered satisfactory performance under these test conditions with the exceptions being the Core i3-10105F and Zen and Zen+ CPUs.
Resizable BAR on/off
Before wrapping up the testing, here’s a look at how Resizable BAR influences performance in Spider-Man Remastered and as you can see it doesn’t.
Results should be the same with or without this PCI Express feature enabled which is true of most games. The only major exception would be for Intel Arc GPUs which will likely benefit from the technology, but this isn’t true for Radeon or GeForce GPUs, we’re showing the Radeon RX 6800 XT here.
Memory Performance
DDR4
Now here’s a look at DDR4-3200 CL14 performance in a single-rank and then the dual-rank configuration that we used for testing. As we’ve found in the past, dual-rank memory typically offers good performance gains in games and here we’re looking at an 8% uplift at 1080p and 6% at 1440p, certainly not massive but still impressive given frequency and timings remain the same.
Now here’s a look at some cheap DDR4-3800 CL19 modules versus our dual-rank DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. This time we’re looking at a 10-12% performance advantage using our test configuration over high clocked, but also higher latency memory.
Finally, we wanted to take a quick look at PCI Express performance with the Core i9-12900K using DDR5-6400 memory.
For a bit of context, the biggest difference we’ve seen previously using an RTX 3080 between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 was about 5%, though admittedly we haven’t looked at this for quite some time.
We were shocked to find a 9% performance improvement at 1080p using PCIe 4.0 over 3.0, that’s quite a large margin. Of course, as we’ve found in the past, that margin almost entirely evaporates at 4K where we’re driving fewer frames. Still, the 1080p results were eye opening and it means for those of you using not just slower DDR memory but also an older PCIe interface can be sacrificing quite a lot of performance.
This is possibly another reason why Intel’s 10th-gen performed a bit weaker than expected as they are limited to PCIe 3.0.
A Word About Stuttering
Something a lot of people mentioned in the GPU benchmark comments was that Spider-Man Remastered has a lot of performance related issues, from frame stuttering to memory leaks. We certainly don’t doubt those claims for a second as there’s no shortage of reports online, but we can tell you that we ran into no such issues, either playing the game which we’ve done now for several hours using various configurations, or from our detailed benchmarking.
The game has been buttery smooth for us, with the exception of a few older configurations using Zen and Zen+ processors, and we’d expect the experience to be dramatically worse with the likes of the older Core i5-7600K as the Core i3-10105F — which is basically a 7700K, which is basically a 6700K — wasn’t very good.
We cannot tell you why our experience was so flawless to what many are reporting, as always with computers it could be any number of things from the exact hardware configuration to what we do or don’t have installed in Windows.
Hopefully though patches continue to address any performance related issues. Assuming you’re in the clear like we are, most CPUs will enable a good gaming experience, particularly newer models. AMD’s Zen 3 CPU range performed well, as did Intel 11th and 12th-gen series.
It was interesting to see how the game behaved with ray tracing enabled, and if you were to look at CPU utilization alone, you’d be given the wrong impression.
Provided you have 4 cores with 8 threads on a modern processor, the game should run just fine. Rather, the key is IPC performance with a heavy emphasis on memory and PCIe bandwidth, or at least that was the case with the 12900K.
We probably don’t need to waffle on any longer, the results have said it all. This was a massive undertaking so we hope you found the results interesting, we know we did and Spider-Man Remastered is now going to join the many games we test with regularly.
Shopping Shortcuts:
- Intel Core i5-12600K on Amazon
- Intel Core i7-12700K on Amazon
- Intel Core i9-12900K on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 9 5950X on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 on Amazon
- AMD Radeon RX 6800 on Amazon
SOLIDWORKS 2020 SP1 CPU Performance
https://www.pugetsystems.com
- Home
- View All Articles
- SOLIDWORKS 2020 SP1 CPU Performance
Read this article at https://www.
pugetsystems.com/guides/1681
Share:
Always look at the date when you read a hardware article. Some of the content in this article is most likely out of date, as it was written on February 28, 2020. For newer information, see our more recent articles.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Test Hardware
- Benchmark Details
- Results & Analysis
- Conclusion
Introduction
With the recent release of SOLIDWORKS 2020’s first service pack, as well as multiple new CPU launches from Intel and AMD in the past few months, we thought it would be a good time to do a roundup of processor performance in modeling, rendering, and simulations within SOLIDWORKS. In the past we have found this application to vary greatly in how it uses the CPU, with some functions being single-threaded while others are able to use all the cores effectively — and, of course, a spread of behavior in-between those extremes.
Looking for an Engineering Workstation?
Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.
Configure a System!
Labs Consultation Service
Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.
Test Hardware
Here are the detailed specs of the test platforms we used:
Benchmark Details
Our SOLIDWORKS benchmark suite was originally developed by one of my colleagues here at Puget Systems: Matt Bach. He put together a series of AutoIt scripts that run through testing a variety of the capabilities in SOLIDWORKS, which I have updated and added to over the years. I have been aided in that process by the help of many readers who have suggested changes, provided additional files for testing, and more. I have done my best to cite their contributions when changes they help with are made to our testing.
Most recently, before this last round of benchmarks, I added a rebuild test with the help of Issac Roberts, an Aerospace Engineer.
I was having trouble because our former rebuild file was taking only fractions of a second for a full rebuild in SW 2020, far too short to get any actionable data. Issac provided an artificially complex file that was built specifically to take a lot longer to rebuild — more so that most real world assemblies, but it worked well to give us more measurable times so that we can look at the behavior of different CPUs in this area.
The whole battery of tests was run multiple times on each CPU, with the fastest result (lowest time) used for this article. We didn’t have any significant outlier results and saw very little variance between runs, so we opted for this method over an average of scores. The results are broken up into individual graphs below and followed by our analysis.
Results & Analysis
Here are galleries of the results from each part of our SOLIDWORKS testing. AMD chips are shown in red — darker for Threadripper, lighter for Ryzen. Intel processors are in blue, similarly with Core X models in a darker shade and the mainstream Core in a lighter color.
SOLIDWORKS start up, file open / close, rebuild, and motion study performance
In this first set of data, we can see that the tested Intel processors are somewhat faster for starting up SOLIDWORKS itself as well as opening files, though saving files is a more mixed bag — and has much less overall variance. Motion studies also show a pretty small variance, but slightly favor Intel again.
That brings us to rebuild testing, and this deserves some explanation.
Our previous test file for rebuild was only taking fractions of a second in SW 2020, so a reader (Issac Roberts) reached out to me to help provide a more complex assembly that was specifically tailored to increase rebuild time… and boy did it work! However, it uncovered something odd: the times that SW itself reported for rebuilding the assembly were drastically different from the actual time that the system was unresponsive while working on it. As such, I started recording both numbers — and have provided them here on separate charts. In both cases, AMD’s processors were faster for rebuilding than the Intel chips we tested — but the difference in actual, real-world time was far smaller than the numbers which SW reports. Remember that getting to these results required extra work, though, and most files won’t take anywhere near this long to rebuild.
Various SOLIDWORKS simulation tests
Simulations in SOLIDWORKS come in many varieties, and show equaly varied performance across the CPUs we tested. The Stress simulation seems to be the biggest outlier, which had low core count processors doing the best… but the overall variance wasn’t huge. Close behind are the Thermal and Airflow simulations, which both also had little variance between most of the processors — with the exception of AMD’s Threadripper 3990X, which did particularly poorly. I don’t have an explanation for that, but it may have to do with how many cores & threads it supports (64 / 128, respectively) interacting badly with SOLIDWORKS.
That is just a guess, though.
Moving on to our newer «Benchmark» simulations, Intel’s top Core i9 and AMD’s 24- and 32-core Threadripper processors all did very well — but Intel has a price advantage at that level, making the Core i9 10980XE the best value / performance choice for this workload.
SOLIDWORKS PhotoView 360 rendering
PhotoView 360 is where high core count processors really shine, since CPU-based rendering like this scales extremely well. Because of that, we see all three of AMD’s 3rd Gen Threadripper chips doing extremely well here. If you do a lot of rendering, the speed those processors offer can easily outweigh their slower performance in other areas simply because of how long rendering itself often takes. The Ryzen 9 3950X also puts in a very respectable showing here, as does Intel’s Core i9 10980XE if you do lots of simulations as well.
The last gallery, below, has a different color scheme. These charts are looking at frame-rates while rotating an assembly, with varying quality settings. Instead of using colors to separate processors, this time the colors correspond to the settings used in the viewport.
Assembly rotation performance
And lastly, looking at framerates while rotating assemblies — all of these CPUs are more than fast enough for general modeling work! There is some variation, mostly limited to low quality modes, but the selection of video card ends up having a much bigger impact on this aspect of SOLIDWORKS. For more information on that, check out our companion SOLIDWORKS 2020 SP1 GPU performance article.
Conclusion
It is tricky to make a single recommendation when separate aspects of an application behave differently, so this conclusion is broken down based on usage:
- For general engineering work, along with motion studies and simple simulations, Intel’s Core i9 9900K is a great choice
- For more in-depth simulations, Intel’s Core i9 10980XE offers some of the best performance at a great price
- For rendering, AMD’s 3rd Gen Threadripper chips are clear winners — but other high core count processors do well too
We offer SOLIDWORKS-specific workstations focusing on the first two of those categories, and have other rendering-optimized systems for those whose workload is heaviest in that area.
Looking for a SOLIDWORKS Workstation?
Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.
Configure a System!
Labs Consultation Service
Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.
Tags: Dassault, Systemes, CPU, Processor, Performance, Intel, Core, i7, i9, Solidworks, AMD, AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, Threadripper, Core X, Ryzen, Rendering
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
How can I tell if a PC processor is any good? | Technology
I had no idea the Core i3-6100 you mentioned last week is faster than some of the slower i5 chips. Is there any chance of you writing an article that focuses on processors? I appreciate that PCs are more than just processors, but I would find it useful. 75drayton
It’s worse than that.
There have been cheap Intel Pentium chips that were faster than Core i7’s! Intel uses BMW-style branding, where the Core i3, i5 and i7 are marketed as good/better/best. This is usually a fair reflection of current performance per watt of power used, but it doesn’t tell you the raw performance.
You also have to look beyond the branding, because today’s Core chips are different from last year’s. Intel usually brings out a new generation of processors every 12-18 months, and the Core range is now in its seventh generation.
Generation game
Each generation of Core chips has its own code name, such as Sandy Bridge, Haswell, and Skylake. The latest is Kaby Lake. Each generation brings enhanced features, and some mark a shift to a new manufacturing technology, measured in nanometres. Smaller is better. Core iX chips have gone from 32nm to 22nm to today’s 14nm. Shrinking the transistors enables Intel to put more of them on each chip, and thus add new features.
The generation is shown by the first number after the dash in each Core chip’s name.
For example, a Core i7-3770 is a third generation chip, while the Core i7-7770 is the seventh generation version of the same CPU. Intel says the rest of the number – in this case, 770 – is its SKU (stock-keeping unit) designation. Higher numbers usually indicate better performance and other features, but I don’t have room for all the details you can find online.
All Intel’s processors now include a graphics co-processor. This is also given a generation number, but it’s one step behind. For example, seventh generation Core i7 chips have HD Graphics 620 or whatever, while sixth-gen chips have HD Graphics 520. The best graphics chips get Iris branding.
Speed vs power consumption
People who need performance, including gamers, often complain that processors aren’t getting faster every year, like they used to. They are getting a little faster, but mostly they’re getting smaller and consuming less power. The key point, mentioned above, is “performance per watt”.
Chips that use less power generate less heat, so they don’t need as much cooling.
This enables manufacturers to make thinner laptops with better battery life, which is what most people want.
Progress is now indicated mainly by the fall in TDP (Thermal Design Power) ratings. The second-gen Core i5-2500 in my 2011-vintage desktop PC is still faster than most current Intel chips, but it runs at 95W. It’s slightly slower than a brand new Core i7-7600U, but that runs at only 15W.
In other words, you can now put the same processing power in an ultra-thin laptop that used to need a tower system with big cooling fans.
Of course, chips with a higher TDP will generally run faster, other things being equal. In Intel’s current line-up, the fast quad-core chips with HQ after their names run at 45W or 47W, while the U chips are 15W or 28W designs. The Y chips consume only 4.5W: see below.
Under the Core
Intel was able to out-design and out-manufacture rivals such as AMD, but faced a tougher challenge when ARM processors started to dominate the markets for phones, smartphones and tablets.
Intel’s chips were big. power-hungry and expensive; ARM chips were small, phenomenally power-efficient, cheap, and fast enough.
Intel sold ARM chips for a while before deciding to create its own range of small, cheap and power-efficient Atom processors to compete for this booming market. Atoms, unlike ARM chips, could execute the x86 instructions needed to run Microsoft Windows software.
Atom chips failed to penetrate the smartphone and tablet markets in significant numbers, but they were successful in powering cheap, small-screen Windows “netbooks” like the Asus Eee PC and Samsung NC10.
These early Atom chips were rather slow. When designs became fast enough for general-purpose use, Intel started branding them with historic names – Pentium and Celeron – that had more prestige. These two lines dominate today’s entry-level PC market.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any logic to Intel’s numbering system, beyond the fact that X7 Atoms are faster than X5 Atoms, which are better than X3 Atoms.
Pentium-Atoms should also be faster than Celeron-Atoms, but you’d have to run benchmarks to be sure.
Why Y?
In 2014, Intel announced a new family of processors, which it called Core M. It said that Core chips were for people who needed power, and Atom chips were for people who needed battery life, but Core M would bridge the two.
The Core M wasn’t a success in the Windows laptop market, though Apple used it in the MacBook – the model best known for having a single USB-C port. That may be why the M range has survived. (Digital Trend’s headline put it brutally: Nobody wants Intel’s Core M processor, and Computex proves it.)
Unfortunately, with Kaby Lake, Intel changed its naming system by putting a Y in some chip numbers. The Core m5 became the Core i5-7Y54 and the Core m7 became the Core i7-7Y75. People who may think they are getting a full-power 15W Core chip will in fact be getting a slower 4.5W Core M. Caveat emptor.
Benchmarks
When buying a new PC, you can check the CPU’s name to get its age and approximate performance level.
The blurb should also tell you the clock speed and whether it’s a dual core or quad-core chip. More GHz and more cores are always better, though a dual-core chip can still be faster than a quad-core.
After that, you can look for benchmark comparisons, especially if the benchmarks measure the kinds of things you normally do – maths processing, video rendering, gaming or whatever. The problem is that there are dozens of benchmarks and it can be hard to find results for new PCs.
However, you can find benchmarks for most processors at websites such as PassMark, Geekbench, and AnandTech. You can also compare CPUs head-to-head at CPU Boss, CPU World and AnandTech.
The quickest option is still the one I mentioned last week: go to Notebookcheck’s Comparison of Mobile Processors (CPU Benchmarks) and, other things being equal, choose the chip that’s highest in the table. Anything in the top 200 is good. Anything that doesn’t make the top 500 isn’t particularly good, but might be OK for casual tasks such as email, watching YouTube and BBC iPlayer, and web browsing.
A CPU that would be frustrating in a £500 desktop can be perfectly acceptable in a £150-£250 tablet or a 2-in-1 laptop.
Notebookcheck’s table also includes AMD processors, which are worth checking out. Some of AMD’s cheaper chips have been both slow and hot, but processors like the A6-7310 look competitive. AMD also has the 14nm Zen, a “clean sheet” redesign, on the way. I wouldn’t bet on AMD regaining its former glory, but it may be perking up.
Have you got a question? Email it to [email protected]
PC Processors Ranking — Comparison List 2022
Chart comparing performance of best PC processors. Latest Core, ryzen CPU speed compared in a ranking. Find out which desktop processor is fastest.
2022-09-27
- Processors Ranking
- Applications Performance
- Gaming Performance
- AMD
- Intel
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 7950X 100%
|
|
Check price |
i9 12900KS 96.
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 7900X 95%
|
|
Check price |
i9 12900k 94.3%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 7700X 89.3%
|
|
Check price |
i7 12700k 89.3%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 5950X 84%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 7600X 83.
|
|
Check price |
i5 12600k 82%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 5900X 80.7%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 5800X3D 77.4%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 5800X 75.1%
|
|
Check price |
i5 12600 74.
|
|
Check price |
i9 11900k 74%
|
|
Check price |
i9 10900k 72.5%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 5700X 72.2%
|
|
Check price |
i7 11700k 72.1%
|
|
Check price |
i5 12400F 72%
|
|
Check price |
i9 10850k 71.
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 3900XT 69.6%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 9 3900X 69%
|
|
Check price |
i7 10700K 68.7%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 5600X 68.3%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 5700G 67.
|
|
Check price |
i5 11600k 67.5%
|
|
Check price |
i9 10900 67.5%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 5600 67%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 3800XT 65.7%
|
|
Check price |
i3 12300 64.
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 7 3700X 64.1%
|
|
Check price |
i3 12100F 63.5%
|
|
Check price |
i5 10600k 62.8%
|
|
Check price |
i5 11400F 60.5%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 3600XT 60%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 3600X 59.
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 5 3600 58.7%
|
|
Check price |
i5 10400F 54.8%
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 3 3300X 54.3%
|
|
Check price |
i3 10300 52.2%
|
|
Check price |
i3 10100 49.
|
|
Check price |
Ryzen 3 3100 47%
|
|
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
|
2%
2%
8%
7%
8%
8%
7%
2%Chart comparing performance of best PC processors. Latest desktop CPUs compared in a ranking according to speed. Find out which PC CPU is fastest in the world. Full list comparing latest desktop PC performance from all brands: AMD Ryzen, Intel Core. Speed of latest AMD Ryzen vs Intel Core CPUs based on benchmarks. Find out which Windows or Linux processor is the best to worst. Which type of PC processor from what brand is world fastest. Which model in this comparison is most powerful and good enough to be in top 10 desktop CPUs. Find out which is better out of all processors for PC and wins the competition of strongest processor.
Tier list of desktop processors, best to worst, single-core and multi-core. PC processor Hierarchy, Windows, Linux, fastest to slowest. Comparator of current desktop CPUs by rank from AMD Ryzen, Intel Core. Leaderboard rangking of range of PC processors of all types, new top ten PC desktop CPUs listed rank wise. Which processor is number 1, what PC CPU in comparison on this site has highest score in top 100. Processors standings in table charts with relative percentage scores of highest performing desktop CPUs. Which chip do have best speed and how it ranks up to set of series of other PC processors. What is best PC CPU in its class (flagship high low and mid-range) in this test lineup. What processor is equivalent, similar in performance and comparable to other desktop chips. Current generation flagship high-end and low-end PC chips by rating. Tech rank up — techrankup — In the year September 2022
About article
show less
Techrankup
Techrankup
Desktop Processors
Overall score
3.
5
good
Category scores
CPU performance 2.5
GPU performance 4.5
Overall score
3
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3
GPU performance 5
Testdatum 1
Overall score
2.9
fair
Category scores
GPU performance 3.7
CPU performance 2.1
Overall score
2.9
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.4
GPU performance 4.3
Overall score
2.8
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 2.1
Overall score
2.7
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.8
GPU performance 2.2
Overall rating
2.
7
satisfactory
Category scores
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 1.8
Overall score
2.6
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 1.7
Overall score
2.6
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.7
GPU performance 2.2
Overall score
2.6
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 2.1
Overall score
2.5
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 2
Overall score
2.5
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.
5
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.4
GPU performance 2
Overall score
2.5
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.4
GPU performance 2
Overall score
2.5
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.5
GPU performance 2
Overall score
2.5
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 2
Overall score
2.4
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.4
GPU performance 1.
6
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.7
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 4.7
GPU performance 1.2
Testdatum 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.
8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.8
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 5
GPU performance 1
Testdatum 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.3
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 1
Overall rating
2.3
satisfactory
Category scores
CPU performance 3
GPU performance 1.
6
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall rating
2.2
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.
2
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.5
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
satisfactory
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.
7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 2.2
GPU performance 2.2
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Testdatum 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.7
GPU performance 2
Testdatum 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.
5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.2
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.1
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 2.8
GPU performance 1.4
Overall score
2.1
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 2.9
GPU performance 1.2
Overall rating
2.1
satisfactory
Scores in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.1
fair
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.1
satisfactory
Grades in categories
CPU performance 3.
2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2.1
fair
Category scores
CPU performance 3.2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.
5
GPU performance 1.4
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.7
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
2
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
2
bad
Grades in categories
GPU performance 1
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 4.1
Overall score
1.9
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.1
GPU performance 1.7
Overall score
1.9
bad
Grades in categories
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.9
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.
7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.9
bad
Category scores
GPU performance 1.3
CPU performance 2.4
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
GPU performance 1
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.3
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 3.
3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 2.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.8
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.3
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
1.7
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.5
GPU performance 1.
8
Overall score
1.7
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.7
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1.3
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1.1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.
6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1.4
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.
2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.6
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2.2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.
5
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.9
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.
6
GPU performance 1.4
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 2
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
Testdatum 1
CPU performance 2.6
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.4
GPU performance 1.6
Overall score
1.5
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.7
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 1.
7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.3
GPU performance 1.4
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.6
GPU performance 1.1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.
4
poor
Category scores
CPU performance 1.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.8
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.4
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.7
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.3
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.3
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.3
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 1.5
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.3
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.
4
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
1.3
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.3
GPU performance 1.2
Overall score
1.2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.2
bad
Category ratings
CPU performance 1.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.2
poor
Category scores
CPU performance 1.4
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.
2
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1.3
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1.1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1.1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
GPU performance 1
CPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Grades in categories
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall score
1
bad
Category scores
CPU performance 1
GPU performance 1
Overall Score
1
Bad
Category Scores
CPU Performance 1
GPU Performance 1
Test & Review: Intel Core i5-12400 — Multiple E-Coreless Gaming Processor 9001 9001 days
ago, Intel added 65W and 35W TDP models to its earlier Alder Lake processors.
Our test lab received the Core i5-12400 processor, which can be called one of the most attractive in terms of price / performance ratio. Of course, there are other interesting models, but we will start with this CPU. Let’s see how the Core i5-12400 performs in practice.
Before we get into the details of the desktop models, remember that Intel has also introduced new mobile CPUs. We also recommend that you check out our Alder Lake article series. We published a review of the first released CPUs, examined the differences between productive and efficient cores, as well as the new DDR5 memory. We have already published the first tests of the Core i5-12600K and Core i9-12900K processors, then the test of the Core i7-12700K a bit later. Finally, we evaluated the efficiency and power consumption of games.
Subscribe to the Hardwareluxx VKontakte and Facebook groups, as well as to our Telegram channel (@hardwareluxxrussia).
Today we’ll take a look at the Core i5-12400 processor and answer the question of whether Alder Lake’s non-K generation processors can seriously put pressure on AMD in the entry and mid-market segments.
| Cores | L3 cache | L2 cache | Turbo 3.0 | Frequency Boost | Base frequency | Base Power | Turbo Power | Price | |
| Core i9-12900K | 8P+8E | 30 MB | 14 MB | 5.2 GHz | 5.1 / 3.9 GHz | 3.2 / 2.4 GHz | 125W | 241 W | from 70.400 ₽ |
| Core i7-12700K | 8P+4E | 25 MB | 12 MB | 5.0 GHz | 4.9 / 3.8 GHz | 3.6 / 2.7 GHz | 125W | 190 W | from 50.400 ₽ |
| Core i5-12600K | 6P+4E | 20 MB | 9. 5 MB |
— | 4.9 / 3.6 GHz | 3.7 / 2.8 GHz | 125W | 150W | from 38.200 ₽ |
| Core i5-12400 | 6P+0E | 18 MB | 7.5 MB | — | 4.4 / — GHz | 2.5 / — GHz | 65 W | 117 W | from 24.600 ₽ |
K models feature open multiplier and 125W TDP. Non-K processors already run at a TDP of 65W, but for a short time they can increase the power to 202W, although this only applies to Core i9 models. The clock speeds are below the K processors, which is not surprising.
The
Core i5-12400 offers six performance cores, just like the Core i5-12600K. However, there are no effective nuclei anymore. The L3 cache has been cut from 20MB to 18MB, and since there are no E cores, the total L2 cache is only 7.5MB, or 1.25MB per core. The Boost P-core clock is 4.4GHz, 500MHz slower than the Core i5-12600K.
There is no support for Turbo 3.0. The base frequency of 2.5 GHz is significantly lower, which is not surprising if we compare the TDP of 65 W and 125 W. As for the PL2, the Core i5-12400 can run at 117W for a short time.
In Russia at the time of publication, the Core i5-12400 has not yet appeared, the recommended price is $192 (24.600 ₽). The same Ryzen 5 5600X costs significantly less — from 21.300 ₽, although it is the cheapest Zen 3 processor among desktop PCs (with the exception of G models).
The
Intel desktop Alder Lake releases two different dies with C0 and H0 steppings. C0 stepping is used for all K processors, there are eight productive and eight efficient cores physically on the chip. Moreover, this does not depend on the final processor, whether it is 6P + 4E in Core i5-12600, 8P + 4E in Core i7-12700K or 8P + 8E in Core i9-12900K, extra cores are simply disabled. This allows Intel to offer different configurations using the same die.
The H0 stepping only offers six performance cores and no performance cores at all. Therefore, it will only be used for CPUs that do not have E-cores. Here we can note such processors as Core i5-12600, Core i5-12500 and Core i5-12400.
We received the Core i5-12400 processor just on the H0 stepping. In the picture above, the processors are shown from the back, and the difference in stepping can be seen visually. Shown on the left is a Core i9-12900K with C0 stepping, on the right — Core i5-12400 with H0 stepping.
<>Test and review: Intel Core i5-12400 — fast and efficient gaming processor without E-cores
Test configuration
Intel Core i9-12900KS — review and test / ProCompSoft
The 12900KS «Alder Lake» is Intel’s Special Edition processor, the number one in its desktop processor lineup. Intel has released such non-traditional versions for the past few generations, including the Core i7-8086K and Core i9-9900KS. There were no such SKUs in the 10th and 11th generations, probably because Intel felt AMD had the undeniable lead at the time, both in gaming and performance.
We are still in the midst of the golden era of PC processor competition between Intel and AMD, with Ryzen and Core trying to win over the hearts of users.
Intel holds the crown in gaming performance so far with the Core i9-12900K, and its multi-threaded performance is on par with 12-core and 16-core Ryzen 9 processors5000 «Zen 3». What probably prompted Intel to create the i9-12900KS was AMD’s June 2021 announcement of 3D Vertical Cache technology, followed by a January 2022 announcement that the new Ryzen 7 5800X3D, the first processor to feature this technology. In addition, it is the «best gaming processor in the world», catching up with the i9-12900K in games, despite being based on the old «Zen 3» architecture plus DDR4. Of course, in response, Intel released a faster version of the i9-12900K, so today there will be an i9 review-12900KS.
Contents
Contents:
Architecturally and functionally, the Core i9-12900KS is basically identical to the i9-12900K.
There are eight Golden Cove performance cores (or P-cores), eight efficient cores (or E-cores), 30MB shared L3 cache, a Xe LP iGPU with 32 EU and next-generation I/O with PCI-Express Gen 5 features and memory DDR5 while maintaining backwards compatibility with DDR4. The new higher clocked P-cores are impacting gaming performance. P-cores now have a max boost frequency of 5.50 GHz instead of 5.20 GHz on the i9-12900K.
This is achieved by reintroducing the Thermal Velocity Boost feature that was rudimentary in the i9-12900K. «KS» has a P-core base frequency of 3.40GHz, while 3.20GHz on the i9-12900K. Turbo Boost 2.0 is 100 MHz higher at 5.20 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. Turbo Boost Max 3.0 is again 100 MHz higher, 5.30 GHz vs 5.20 GHz. 5.20 GHz is where the i9-12900K peaked at stock settings. The i9-12900KS uses Thermal Velocity Boost to increase the P-core clock to 5.50GHz. This algorithm works the same way as on i9-11900K or i9-10900K, rewarding good CPU cooling with additional turbo bins.
The base and turbo frequencies of the E-core also get a 100MHz boost. iGPU clock speeds have not changed. These higher clock speeds are due to a slight increase in base processor power (PBP), which is now 150W compared to 125W on the i9-12900K. However, the maximum turbo power (MTP) of the two chips is the same at 241W. Like the Core i9-12900K, the 12900KS runs at PL1=PL2=241W.
In addition to Thermal Velocity Boost, Intel Adaptive Boost Technology (ABT) returns. ABT was introduced with the i9-11900K «Rocket Lake» but was not included with the i9-12900K. ABT quickly enables additional boost intervals for all P-cores, improving multi-threaded performance.
As previously mentioned, the Core i9-12900KS is a «Special Edition» SKU. Its retail availability won’t be as wide as the i9-12900K. Intel prices the chip at $739 per 1,000 pieces, $140 more than the i9-12900K. For calculations in this review, a cost of $ 750 is taken. In return, we are promised «the world’s fastest desktop processor.
» Let’s find out if this is the case.
Specifications
| Price | Cores / Threads |
Basic frequency |
Turbo Frequency |
L3 Cache |
TDP | Architecture | Process | Socket | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i5-9400F | $165 | 6 / 6 | 2.9 GHz | 4.1 GHz | 9MB | 65 W | Coffee Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1151 |
| Core i5-10400F | $125 | 6 / 12 | 2.9 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 12 MB | 65 W | Comet Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Core i5-11400F | $160 | 6 / 12 | 2. 6 GHz |
4.4 GHz | 12 MB | 65 W | Rocket Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Core i5-12400F | $180 | 6 / 12 | 2.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 18 MB | 65 W | Alder Lake | 10 nm | LGA 1700 |
| Core i5-10500 | $205 | 6 / 12 | 3.1 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 12 MB | 65 W | Comet Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Ryzen 5 3600 | $230 | 6 / 12 | 3.6 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 32 MB | 65 W | Zen 2 | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Core i5-9600K | $220 | 6 / 6 | 3.7 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 9 MB | 95W | Coffee Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1151 |
| Core i5-10600K | $210 | 6 / 12 | 4. 1 GHz |
4.8 GHz | 12 MB | 125W | Comet Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Core i5-11600K | $210 | 6 / 12 | 3.9 GHz | 4.9 GHz | 12 MB | 125W | Rocket Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Ryzen 5 3600X | $190 | 6 / 12 | 3.8 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 32 MB | 95W | Zen 2 | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Ryzen 5 5600G | $225 | 6 / 12 | 3.9 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 16 MB | 65 W | Zen 3 + Vega | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Ryzen 5 5600X | $230 | 6 / 12 | 3.7 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 32 MB | 65 W | Zen 3 | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Core i5-12600 | $240 | 6 / 12 | 3. 3 GHz |
4.8 GHz | 18 MB | 65 W | Alder Lake | 10 nm | LGA 1700 |
| Core i5-12600K | $270 | 6+4 / 16 | 3.7 / 2.8 GHz | 4.9 / 3.6 GHz | 20 MB | 125W | Alder Lake | 10 nm | LGA 1700 |
| Core i7-9700K | $310 | 8 / 8 | 3.6 GHz | 4.9 GHz | 12 MB | 95W | Coffee Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1151 |
| Core i7-10700K | $325 | 8 / 16 | 3.8 GHz | 5.1 GHz | 16 MB | 125W | Comet Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Core i7-11700K | $315 | 8 / 16 | 3.6 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 16 MB | 125W | Rocket Lake | 14 nm | LGA 1200 |
| Ryzen 7 3700X | $320 | 8 / 16 | 3. 6 GHz |
4.4 GHz | 32 MB | 65 W | Zen 2 | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Ryzen 7 5700G | $350 | 8 / 16 | 3.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 16 MB | 65 W | Zen 3 + Vega | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Core i7-12700K | $385 | 8+4 / 20 | 3.6 / 2.7 GHz | 5.0 / 3.8 GHz | 25 MB | 125W | Alder Lake | 10 nm | LGA 1700 |
| Ryzen 7 5800X | $380 | 8 / 16 | 3.8 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 32 MB | 105W | Zen 3 | 7 nm | AM4 |
| Core i9-12900KS | $750 | 8+8 / 24 | 3.4 / 2.5 GHz | 5.5 / 4.0 GHz | 30 MB | 150 W | Alder Lake | 10 nm | LGA 1700 |
Architecture
You can get acquainted with the features of the new processor architecture plus the Z690 chipset here, and with the Intel B660 and H610 chipsets here.
Unpacking
Here is the processor itself. It measures 37.5 x 45.0mm and is more rectangular like the previous LGA1366.
The Intel Socket LGA1700 has an intuitive installation process that should be familiar from many past LGA sockets. The problem is that it has a different cooler hole spacing than the LGA1200 and five different Socket-H series sockets before it, so you’ll have to look for a compatible cooler. Most cooler manufacturers give away adapters, but they are not available in all countries.
Test units
- All applications, games, and processors are tested using the drivers and hardware listed below — test results were not redistributed across test systems.
- All games and applications are tested using the same version.
- All games are set to the highest quality unless otherwise noted.
| Alder Lake Test System | |
|---|---|
| CPU: | All 12th generation Intel processors |
| MP: | DDR5: ASUS Z690 Maximus Hero / BIOS 0702 DDR4: ASUS Z690 STRIX-A Gaming D4 / BIOS 0705 |
| RAM: | 2x 16 GB G. SKILL Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6000 36-36-36-76 2T / Gear 2 2x 16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 16-20-20-34 1T / Gear 1 / DR |
| GPU: | EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 FTW3 Ultra |
| Accumulator: | Neo Forza NFP065 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD |
| Cooling: | Noctua NH-U14S |
| Water cooled: | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 mm |
| Thermal paste: | Arctic MX-5 |
| PSU: | Seasonic SS-860XP |
| OS: | Windows 11 Professional 64-bit Build 10.0.22000.282 Includes AMD L3 latency fix |
| Drivers: | NVIDIA GeForce 496.49 WHQL |
| Zen 3 Test System | |
|---|---|
| CPU: | All AMD Ryzen 5000 processors |
| MP: | MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus BIOS 7C37vAF3, AGESA 1.  2.0.3c |
| RAM: | 2x 16 GB DDR4-3600 16-20-20-34 1T Infinity Fabric @ 1800 MHz 1:1 |
| Rocket Lake Test System | |
|---|---|
| CPU: | All 11th generation Intel processors |
| MP: | ASUS Z590 Maximus XIII Hero BIOS 1007 |
| RAM: | 2x 16 GB DDR4-3600 16-20-20-34 1T Gear 1 |
| All other specifications as above | |
| Comet Lake test system | |
|---|---|
| CPU: | All 10th generation Intel processors |
| MP: | ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme BIOS 2301 |
| RAM: | 2x 16 GB DDR4-3600 16-20-20-34 1T |
| All other specifications as above | |
Synthetic benchmarks
Super Pi
SuperPi is one of the most popular tests among overclockers and tweakers.
It has been used in world record competitions since time immemorial. This is a purely single-threaded CPU test, counting Pi up to a huge number of digits — 32 million for this test. Released back in 1995, the benchmark only supports x86 floating point instructions and thus is a good benchmark for the performance of single-threaded legacy applications.
wPrime
While SuperPi focuses on calculating Pi, wPrime solves a different math problem: finding prime numbers. To do this, he uses Newton’s method. One of the design goals of wPrime was to design it in such a way that it can make the best use of all the cores and threads available on the processor.
Rendering
Cinebench
Cinebench is one of the most popular modern CPU benchmarks because it is based on Maxon Cinema 4D software. Both AMD and Intel have demonstrated this performance test at various public events, making it practically an industry standard. Cinebench R20 tests both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance.
Blender
Blender is one of the few professional rendering programs that is free and open source. This fact alone has helped build a strong community around the software, making it a very popular test program due to its ease of use. The Blender «BMW 27» test scene was used for testing.
Corona
Corona Renderer is a modern photorealistic renderer available for Autodesk 3ds Max and Cinema 4D. It provides a physically believable and predictable result thanks to a realistic lighting algorithm, global illumination and beautiful materials. Corona does not support GPU rendering, so CPU performance is very important.
KeyShot
KeyShot standalone rendering software offers fast and efficient workflows to help you get high quality, realistic product shots in no time. Real-time ray tracing, multi-core photon mapping, adaptive material sampling, and a dynamic light core provide high-quality images that update instantly, even when working interactively on stage.
KeyShot is optimized for use only on CPUs, allowing them to run more complex algorithms than GPU-based ones. Unlike other rendering tests, this one records «frames per second» during rendering, so higher numbers are better.
V-Ray
V-Ray is the world’s leading 3D rendering software that uses global illumination, path tracing, photon mapping, and light maps to achieve ultra-realistic rendering. It has been used for computer graphics in countless films and television series. V-Ray supports all major 3D applications making it ideal for any rendering pipeline. This test uses the V-Ray 5 test tool in CPU-only mode to get the number of «vsamples» that can be processed on a given hardware. The higher the better.
Software & Game Development
Unreal Engine 4
Unreal Engine 4 is one of the industry’s leading multi-platform game engines. It’s not only advanced, it’s loaded with features to help you get results faster than competing products — time is money.
Before submitting the game, a lengthy «light baking» process must be completed. It uses all the static geometry and fixed lights in the scene and precalculates the lightmap textures for them, resulting in a huge performance boost in the final game because those calculations no longer have to be done in real time on the user’s system. For tests, we generate «baked» lightmaps for a relatively simple scene, which usually takes several hours.
Visual Studio C++
Microsoft Visual C++ is perhaps the most popular programming language for building professional Windows applications. It is part of the Microsoft Visual Studio Development Suite, which has a long history and is widely recognized as the gold standard when it comes to IDEs. Compiling software is a rather lengthy process that turns code into the final executable, and programmers hate to wait for it to complete. For the test, a medium-sized application is run through the C++ compiler and linker, and the resource compiler is run.
The build runs in release mode with all optimizations enabled and multiprocessor compilation enabled.
Web Browsers
Web Browsing — Google Octane
Google Octane tests web browser performance by running a suite of Javascript-based tests that represent typical use cases in today’s dynamic, interactive web applications.
Web Browsing — Mozilla Kraken
Mozilla Kraken is similar to Octane in that it measures Javascript execution time, but uses a different set of tests based on the SunSpider test. Test cases include audio processing, search algorithms, image filtering, JSON parsing, and cryptography.
WebXPRT
WebXPRT 3 is a benchmark browser that measures the performance of typical web applications such as photo enhancement, AI media control, stock option pricing, encryption, OCR, charting, and performance. This is unlike the other two browser tests, which focus more on microbenchmarks, testing specific algorithms.
Machine learning
Image Upscaling
Artificial intelligence and machine learning make it possible to create applications that are almost magical in their capabilities. The first AI test uses Topaz Gigapixel AI to upscale a series of low-resolution photos to a higher resolution while enhancing fine details.
Image Classification
Teaching AI to accurately recognize image content has always been one of the holy grails of machine learning research. Nero AI Photo Tagger is a consumer-facing application that provides an easy way to use these algorithms. We let the program categorize 2,500 photos by tags like «car», «dog», or «flower».
Tensorflow
Artificial intelligence is everywhere these days. Algorithms based on machine learning take on the bulk of many manual tasks that were previously only possible for humans. For deep learning AI to solve problems, it must first be trained with a large set of training data repeatedly evaluated to create a neural network that can later be run (also called inference). Python-based Google Tensorflow is one of the most popular machine learning software packages, supporting both CPUs and GPUs. Setting up Tensorflow for the GPU is a little tricky, so developing and training algorithms for small datasets still happens on the CPU. The training performance on the CPU can also be higher than on the GPU when task sizes exceed typical GPU memory sizes.
Simulation
Physics
COMSOL is the gold standard for accurate simulation of physical effects and one of ANSYS’ strongest competitors. What is the advantage of the software is in solving multiphysics problems that depend on several phenomena — you can simulate everything, including black holes. The modular aspect of COMSOL helps professionals customize the software to suit their needs, which can be run with a single module or multiple modules to work together for more complex tasks, as well as with two-way communication with external programs such as CAD software.
Neurons of the brain
NAMD is developed by the University of Illinois and helps researchers model the dynamic interactions between molecules and atoms. It is a well-established molecular dynamics simulation tool that scales from individual clusters of molecules to full chemical interaction in various phases. Parallel simulation modes help differentiate NAMD from its peers, allowing you to effectively solve problems in larger systems using the Charm++ parallel programming model as a foundation.
Office & Productivity
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Office needs no introduction as it is probably the most widely used PC software on the planet, installed on every office computer, regardless of industry. These tests cover a wide range of editing and creation tasks in Word, PowerPoint, and Excel.
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop has become the industry standard for photo and image processing. The test applies the latest version of Photoshop CC through a number of typical editing tasks such as image resizing, various blurs, sharpening, color and light adjustments, and exporting images.
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe Premiere Pro CC is the workhorse of the video production industry, creating high quality content for film, television and the web. The software can handle almost all recorded file formats and supports workflows for editing content in Full HD, 4K, 8K and virtual reality. Unfortunately, most of Premiere Pro is single-threaded, and media encoding is greatly accelerated by the GPU, so benchmarking «export» to CPU doesn’t make much sense. The testing uses the software’s «object tracking» functionality, which automatically loops through video to follow a specific person or object — a task that does use more than the core, but doesn’t fully scale. The process uses a lot of memory (more than 10 GB for the test scene).
Creating a 3D model from photographs
Creating 3D models is a tedious and complex task that requires time and experienced artists. Thus, this is the holy grail of 3D modeling, allowing you to reconstruct a 3D model from a series of photographs. This is exactly what Photogrammetry does. This method is also used to reconstruct terrain geometry from photographs taken by aerial drones.
OCR text recognition — Google Tesseract
Text Recognition OCR, or OCR, is the task of converting text in scanned images or photographs into real characters for archiving, further processing, or editing. While most OCR software is single-threaded, Google’s Tesseract engine can handle multiple pages of a scanned document at once, spreading the load across multiple processor cores. Considered to be one of the most accurate open source OCR packages available, the software automatically performs spell checking on initial recognition results, adding to the complexity of the workload.
Server & Workstation
Virtualization — VMWare Workstation
A virtual machine is a simulated computer inside a physical PC, completely independent of the host computer. This not only improves security, but also allows programs written for different operating systems to run on the same physical machine. Virtualization is the foundation of the cloud and helps reduce the cost of hardware ownership by dynamically distributing virtual machines across multiple computers to make the best use of these hardware resources. Here we test the performance of virtual machines using VMWare Workstation, with hardware virtualization support for Intel and AMD processors. Curiously, many AMD Ryzen motherboards come with the SVM setting disabled by default.
Database — MySQL
More data is stored and processed today than ever before in human history. At the heart of this revolution are database systems that manage the storage and retrieval of large datasets. Whenever you interact with a website or other digital service, it is almost guaranteed that at least one database will be involved to return the results the user is looking for. The most popular database system, MySQL, is tested here in the TPC-C test, simulating a large number of storages and their constantly changing inventory. The reported number is «transactions per second», so the higher the better.
Java
The Java programming language is designed to be platform independent, highly scalable, and fault tolerant, making it very popular for enterprise services that work with large amounts of data and many concurrent users. This test suite consists of a large set of individual Java tests, some of which are single-threaded, some are somewhat scalable, and some are fully scalable to the maximum possible number of cores.
Compression & Encoding
WinRAR
Data is compressed nearly all the time it travels over the wire to reduce download times and transfer sizes. WinRAR uses a more advanced compression algorithm than classic ZIP, which is why it was chosen for this test. It can also scale across multiple processor cores.
7-Zip
Another popular compression software is 7-Zip, which includes a benchmark that measures Integer Command Rate (MIPS) using the ZIP algorithm. It makes good use of multiple threads when available.
AES
Encryption is the basis for secure communication on the Internet. The AES encryption standard is one of the most popular encryption algorithms these days due to its simplicity and attack resistance. Unlike other encryption methods, AES is symmetrical, which means that the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt data. The ability to quickly encrypt and decrypt information is important, so modern processors have an instruction set extension called «AES-NI» that speeds up these operations.
SHA3
SHA is technically not encryption, but hashing. A cryptographic hash function is a mathematical algorithm that creates a fingerprint value for existing data. This is a one-way function that is almost impossible to invert. Another requirement for a good hashing algorithm is that you can’t create a collision: create a message that yields a certain hash value. All this is achieved using the SHA3 algorithm, which is also often used to authenticate transmitted data, which may have first been encrypted with AES.
Media encoding
AV1
Today, all video that is used on television, on physical media or streamed over the Internet, is compressed using various codecs. AV1 is a new generation open source and free video codec, unlike other recent new video compression algorithms. Major industry players such as YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook support AV1 and are gradually rolling out support for the new format. Compared to older algorithms like H.264, the compression rate is much better, or you can achieve better image quality for a given bitrate. We use SVT-AV1 encoder with 4K video source to compress to AV1.
H.265 / HEVC
Nowadays, all video, whether on TV, on physical media or over the Internet, is compressed using various codecs. The first video encoding test uses the fairly new H.265 codec, also known as HEVC. The video is compressed in Full HD using the latest X265 encoder, with 8-bit color depth, preset «slower» and quality setting crf 20.
H.264 / AVC
H.264, also called AVC, is a slightly older compression format, although probably the most widely used encoding format these days because it is well supported even on older hardware. The video is compressed similar to the H.265 test using X264 encoding software, with «slower» preset and crf 20.
MP3
MP3 has revolutionized the music industry like no other technology. Introduced at 90s, it allowed to significantly reduce the size of audio files without noticeable impact on sound quality. This has made music downloading and eventually streaming a viable way to deliver content over the Internet. For the benchmark, a 2.5 hour 44.1kHz stereo recording is converted to a variable bitrate MP3 file. MP3 encoding is a single threaded process.
Gaming tests with RTX 3080
720p
All games in the CPU test set run through 720p using an RTX 3080 graphics card and Ultra settings. This low resolution serves to demonstrate the theoretical performance of the processor, because games at this resolution are severely limited. Of course, no one buys a PC with an RTX 3080 to play at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that doesn’t hit 144 FPS at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions. As such, these numbers may be of interest to developers of high refresh rate gaming PCs with fast 120Hz and 144Hz monitors. The 720p benchmarks therefore serve as synthetic benchmarks in the sense that they are not up-to-date (720p is no longer a real resolution for PC gaming), although the gaming benchmarks themselves are not synthetic (they are real games, not 3D benchmarks). 95.
Clock speeds
The following chart shows how well the processor maintains its clock speed and what clock speed increases are achieved with different numbers of threads. This test uses a specially coded app that simulates real-world performance — it’s not a stress test like Prime95. Modern processors change their clock behavior depending on the type of load, so we provide three graphs with classic floating point math, SSE SIMD code, and modern AVX vector instructions. Each of the three test runs calculates the same result using the same algorithm, only with a different set of CPU instructions.
Overclocking
Overclocking the Core i9-12900KS is quite difficult despite the unlocked multiplier. All «K» processors made by Intel have unlocked multipliers, so you can simply hit your desired clock speed. The problem is not in the mechanics of overclocking, but in somehow managing heat dissipation.
That’s why this approach was slightly different from the usual for better overclocking. 12900KS started with all cores set to the same x49 multiplierfor all cores at 4.9 GHz, and increased the voltage until it approached the thermal limit of 115°C when running Prime95. Unlike other Alder Lake processors, including the Core i9-12900K, the KS has a default temperature limit of 115°C instead of 100°C. 115°C is the maximum manual setting selected in the BIOS for all Alder Lake processors. Since this is the default, Intel’s warranty covers the processor up to 115°C, which is a good hint for users of other Alder Lake processors based on the same die; there is no reason why they won’t survive 115°C either.
As for the voltage, stopped at 1.35V and started increasing the multipliers until the system became unstable. Increasing the clock speed increased heat dissipation, so we had to lower the voltage a little — the idea here is to pump as much (or as little) voltage into the processor as the cooling solution can handle. At this voltage, it turned out to work at a frequency of 5.3 GHz almost stably, so we stopped at 5.2 GHz all-core for OC testing. Since the 5.2 GHz frequency immediately became stable, there was a small margin for further voltage reduction, which slightly reduced power and heat. If you have a high-quality custom water cooler, you can be sure that you can easily go to 1. 4V and above to reach 5.4GHz or more.
This is a huge improvement over the i9-12900K, which maxed out at 5.0 GHz — the new KS really seems to be better built.
Performance Summary
Relative Performance
Performance / $
Review
The Intel Core i9-12900KS starts selling this week for $750 to $800. Intel’s price for 1K is $739.
- Proven to be the world’s fastest gaming processor
- Improved performance
- Adds Thermal Velocity Boost and Adaptive Boost
- DDR5 and PCI-Express 5.0 support
- Also supports DDR4
- Multiplier Unlocked
- Integrated graphics
- 10nm manufacturing process
- Very high heat output and energy consumption
- Requires massive cooling
- Significant price increase relative to Core i9-12900K
- The total winnings are only minimal
- Some workloads are assigned to incorrect cores
- CPU cooler not included
- Integrated graphics not good enough for serious gaming
With the Core i9-12900KS, Intel is looking to expand its Alder Lake offerings — no doubt to thwart AMD from trying to claim the gaming performance crown with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which launches later this month. While the new Ryzen comes with new technology in the form of a new 3D V-Cache, 129The 00KS is based entirely on the Core i9-12900K with the addition of some additional Boost technologies that have already been seen previously on Intel processors. The most noticeable change is the Core i9-12900KS, which now clocks up to 5.5 GHz — an impressive 300 MHz higher than the 12900K and a whole gigahertz higher than the 5800X3D, although you shouldn’t just compare MHz. To achieve such high overclocking speeds, Intel brings Thermal Velocity Boost and Adaptive Boost to Alder Lake. To properly support these new technologies, all tests were run with an updated BIOS that includes the Intel 0x1F microcode update, designed specifically to support the Core i9.-12900KS.
Overall, averaging 38 test applications based on a mix of different workloads from all segments, single-threaded, mixed-threaded, and multi-threaded, found the Core i9-12900KS to be 4% faster than the Core i9-12900K. To be honest, more was expected. When we tested Core i9-9900KS and 9900K, the difference was 10%. However, these successes are not entirely unexpected. After all, 5.5 GHz over 5.2 GHz is a 5.7% increase, and that’s only with a maximum turbo rating of «up» attached to it, which has a few stars attached to it, more on that later. As meager as these achievements may seem, 12900KS is without a doubt the fastest gaming processor on the market. It’s also amazingly fast in apps. In the aggregate performance ranking, it closely matches AMD’s flagship Ryzen 9 5950X processor, which is a full 16-core/32-thread design, while the 12900KS is a mixture of 8 P-cores and 8 E-cores for a total of 24 threads. These numbers clearly show that the new Golden Cove architecture represents a significant improvement in terms of IPC.
However, not everything went perfectly. In several tests, the workload was scheduled for the wrong cores. All tests used Windows 11, which has proper support for the big.LITTLE Alder Lake architecture. Intel has allocated additional die space for «Thread Director», an AI-based network in the CPU that is optimized to tell the OS where to place threads. However, some tests still showed very poor performance. While wPrime as an old synthetic benchmark might not make much of a difference, it’s puzzling that the very popular MySQL database server doesn’t fit in P-cores. Fixing it manually can be done with just a few clicks, and new technology certainly needs time to mature. There is still confidence that the expectation of «100% working» is not unreasonable for this technology. If these two tests worked better, 12900KS could even claim to be the «fastest processor ever tested by TechPowerUP».
As mentioned earlier, the 12900KS is a clear leader in gaming performance, but the gain over the 12900K is even smaller than in applications. With 2% at academically important 720p, 1% at 1080p Full HD that people actually play at, and even less at high resolutions, we’ll never subjectively notice. The reason for the smaller gain at higher resolutions is that such a resolution shifts the load, and hence the bottleneck, from the CPU to the GPU. Despite AMD’s suggestions, this could still be what it takes to secure the throne. The Ryzen 5 5800X is 13% slower at 720p and 8% slower at 1080p. AMD talks about a 15% increase in gaming performance; if we consider cherry picking and a control set, this can be very close. As a player, such skirmishes are of little value; it’s actually a good idea to save some money on the CPU and invest the savings in a faster graphics card which will eventually give you a higher FPS.
Out of the box, the Core i9-12900KS runs at the same power limit PL1=PL2=241W as the Core i9-12900K. Intel does rate the processor higher in their «base power» rating, which appears to be a «guideline TDP» of 150W vs 125W. The reality is that the 12900KS will consume 240 watts of power at all times in demanding applications such as rendering that stresses all cores. For games, especially at high resolutions, heat dissipation will be significantly lower because, as I explained earlier, games are limited by the GPU. If we want to use 12900KS to the fullest, you need to pair it with very good cooling and you will still see temperatures reaching 90°C and above. The 240W power limit actually limits the CPU’s capabilities quite a bit. When the power cap was removed, it resulted in an average of 1% more application performance. So the 12900KS got a TjMax of 115°C, which is a much needed increase over the 100°C of the Core i9-12900K. The only way to cool off the beast in off-spec runs is to manually lower its voltage; chose a lower voltage of -0.1 V, which helped to avoid thermal throttling in these test configurations.
A slightly different approach to using the Core i9-12900KS is to simply let it push its limits for the heaviest workloads that aren’t gaming anyway. This ensures that you get the best performance your cooling solution allows because Intel has a highly efficient, very fine-grained temperature regulation algorithm that regulates only the overheating of the cores, and only as much as is required to prevent them from overheating, checked several times a give me a sec. To keep temperatures down even further, you can manually lower the thermal limit, or adjust the power limits of PL1 and PL2 to fine-tune them according to your system’s cooling capabilities, but you will lose some performance in doing so. This is a perfectly reasonable approach, unless you run rendering applications that constantly use all cores at 100%. Clock speeds will still peak at 5.5GHz for lightly threaded workloads and games.
In our «Average Clock Speed vs. Thread Count» test, we got results confirming Intel’s claims of 5.5 GHz with two cores active. In my example, only cores #5 and #6 can reach these clock speeds, the rest will run at 5.2 GHz even with a single core loaded. Of course, this is exactly how Turbo Boost 3.0 is supposed to work. The problem is that even on Windows 11, when all the communication protocols between the operating system and the processor are active, there are still times when threads don’t hit those two cores, so there’s a bit of a performance penalty. Once you go beyond two loaded cores, up to all eight active P-cores, 129The 00KS will always operate at 5.2 GHz, which is very impressive. Of course, this only works until the processor hits 240W or its thermal limit. If those limits are violated, it will slow down a bit to stay within those limits, which is good.
I also did a round of testing with manual overclocking of all cores, pushing it to the maximum. Compared to other processors, my approach to overclocking was a little different, since the limiting factor is our cooling system, not the maximum processor frequency or voltage. I first chose the highest voltage that my cooling could handle and then looked for the highest clock speed that was stable without overheating the CPU. I reached 5.3 GHz «almost stable», which of course is not good enough, but was unable to add more voltage without CPU throttling due to overheating, which would cause the clock speed to drop below 5.3 GHz. So I had to settle for 5.2 GHz, which allowed me to lower the voltage a little while remaining stable, resulting in a load temperature of 104°C, 10°C lower than I originally expected. When using a decent water-cooling solution, the results were similar — the limit was not the heat output of the water cooler, but rather the heat transfer from a tiny die delivering 350W or more to the heat spreader and block. With custom water cooling and 1.4V+, I’m pretty sure all 5.4GHz cores are within reach. In our Core i9 reviewThe -12900K hit 5.0GHz and this 12900KS hits 5.2GHz, which is strong evidence that Intel is using these chips and using only the best of them for the KS processor. However, manually overclocking all cores is not ideal for general use. You’ll miss out on the 5.5GHz boost when using up to two active cores/four threads.
Intel wants $750 for the Core i9-12900KS, which is a solid $150 premium over the Core i9-12900K. It just can’t be justified by the growth from 12900K. I think Intel is pricing the 12900KS similarly to the Ryzen 9 5950X, which was $750 a while ago, but even the 5950X has dropped in price and is selling for $670 these days; in early March, it even cost $600. If you’re in the market for such an expensive high-end processor, be sure to consider your workloads. If you’re rendering all day or doing something else that uses all the cores, the Ryzen 5950X will be the best choice, also because it offers better power efficiency, which reduces your energy costs and heat generated in the room. If your workloads are mostly single-threaded, or scale to multiple threads but no more, with occasional bursts that take all cores to their limits, Alder Lake is a fantastic choice thanks to the IPC muscle of the Golden Cove architecture. If you absolutely do not need the fastest execution time, it is worth considering cheaper models from the Core i5 and Core i7 families. Spend your savings on a memory upgrade, a larger SSD, or a more powerful graphics card. If you’re building a super-high-end RTX 309 based gaming system0 Ti and you have a thousand dollars left, the Core i9-12900KS is probably what you should add next and after that check out the water cooling options.
Appreciation for reviewing and testing W1zzard from TPU.
Sincerely, procompsoft.ru
Rating of the best processors for computers
Computer performance is a fuzzy concept: the speed of computing depends to varying degrees on the set of its components. RAM, chipset, disk subsystem, video card, type of network connection — they all contribute to the totals of various tests. But they cannot be compared with the central processor — it is he who determines which hardware will perform best in the finished configuration.
Although there are many CPU models to choose from, historically only two companies compete for a place in the sun. And the question of whose processor is better, AMD or Intel, still does not have a definitive answer. We bring to your attention the TOP 10 desktop processors, divided into 5 categories. Such a classification, it seems to us, should satisfy all potential users who decide to buy a new PC or upgrade.
Most powerful processor rating
The battle of the giants begins. We deliberately included mass models in the rating. They are not absolute champions — we decided to exclude high-performance HEDT models from the rating due to their narrow specialization and exceptionally high price tag.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
The best AMD processor deservedly takes the first line of the rating, leaving behind the top competitor models. It was here that a solution based on a 32-core chip operating with 64 threads and manufactured using 12-nanometer technology was first implemented.
Designed for use with sTR4 socket. The number of Colfax cores can vary in the range of 12-32 copies, the main clock frequency is 3 GHz (with the possibility of overclocking up to 3. 5 GHz). A three-level cache is provided (the size of the first is 96 KB, the second is up to 16 MB, the third is up to 65 MB).
The CPU contains a RAM controller and works with SSE generations 2-4 and AMD64/EM64T instruction sets using hardware virtualization technologies and NXBit. The graphics core is missing, as is Hyper-threading support.
The operating temperature of the CPU, according to the manufacturer, does not exceed 68 ° C, the average level of heat dissipation is in the range of 180–250 W. Testing showed that at high load, this figure rises to 600 W, in the overclocking version — up to 800 W. The cooler used here is a special one, Wraith Ripper, but it can be equipped with an analog. If you plan to work on an overclocking processor with constant high loads, it is better to install water cooling.
No performance issues seen when used with the fastest RAM sticks and fastest graphics cards.
Intel Core i9 9900K
And here the processor rating is headed by the model from Intel. It can be used to build both gaming PCs and systems designed for high-quality video processing.
The processor, manufactured using 14-nanometer technology, is sharpened for socket AM4 and contains 8 cores with 16 threads, PM is 3.6 GHz. The possibility of overclocking to 4.3 GHz using Turbo Boost technology has been left. The built-in OP controller is capable of working with 128 GB of quad-channel DDR4-2666. The operating frequency of the system bus is 1.6 GHz, the cache size is 1 level — 64 KB, 2 levels — 8 MB, 3 levels — 11.2 MB. ECC memory is not supported, the maximum number of PCIe lanes is 28.
Supported Technologies: Hardware Virtualization, HyperThreading, NXBit, Optane, AMD64/EM64T, TurboBoost 2.0/3.0. The processor uses several instruction sets, including AVX /2/512 FMA, MMX, SpeedStep, SSE versions 2/3/4. Built-in protection against malicious code and some commands for data encryption.
Many experts consider a thermal interface to be a worse solution than solder, but since the declared thermal power is small, this disadvantage cannot be called serious.
AMD Ryzen7 1800X
The best AMD gaming processor is not far behind the leader. In addition to the gaming focus, experts note that the CPU 1800X can be used to equip high-performance VR devices such as the Oculus Rift. With high performance, the model is able to reproduce VR footage as smoothly and with a high level of fidelity.
The Ryzen7 1800X is manufactured according to the 14 nm process technology, and has 8 cores with 16 threads, a clock frequency of 3.6 GHz, that is, the basic characteristics are similar to the Intel opponent. True, you can only overclock the CPU up to 4 GHz. But there is support for dual-channel DDR4-2667 OP, including the ECC type.
Cache level 1 standard — 96 KB, the second level — 4 MB, the third — 16 MB. Implemented support for commands from the MMX, AVX /2, SSE /2-4 sets, as well as hardware virtualization technology, AMD64/EM64T, and, of course, NX Bit. The number of supported PCIe channels is 16.
Among other features of the processor are the use of proprietary AMD technologies XFR, SenseMI (learning capability for fine automatic performance tuning), Enmotus FuzeDrive function, which allows using SSD and HDD as a single virtual drive.
The Best Workstation CPUs
Shown here are products that are powerful enough to perform demanding but not extreme computing. Typical applications are 3D modeling, vector graphics, processing huge databases, video editing, mathematical calculations. Strictly speaking, they can be used to build gaming systems, but without a margin of safety.
AMD Ryzen5 1600X
This workhorse from AMD has perfectly balanced characteristics and, despite its venerable age, continues to enjoy considerable popularity.
The chips are manufactured using 12/14 nm manufacturing processes, they contain 6 processing cores organized in a 12-thread pipeline. Each Summit Ridge core runs at 3.6 GHz and can be overclocked to 4 GHz.
Implemented support for 2-channel DDR4-2667 OP without ECC. The volume of the cache of the 1st level is the standard 96 KB, but in some modifications it is increased to 512 KB. 3 MB are allotted for the 2nd level cache, 16 MB for the 3rd level. It supports MMX SSE and AVX command sets, NX Bit, AB, AMD64/EM64T technologies, it is possible to use no more than 16 extended PCI 3.0 channels.
A number of proprietary technologies are implemented, including Enmotus FuzeDrive, XFR, SenseMI, and others. The best AMD processor in this category in the boxed version is equipped with a Wraith Spire cooler that does not allow the processor to warm up above the maximum 95 ° C.
AMD Ryzen5 2600
4 Coffee Lake cores configured for 4 threads at 3.6GHz PM. There is no possibility of overclocking, if it is impossible without it, a modification of the model with the prefix “K” is available. OP type DDR4-2400 can be installed up to 64 GB, including ECC type and dual-channel. Cache size: 64 KB first level, 1 and 6 MB — the second and third levels, respectively. Implemented support for 15 PCI Express channels.
Among the technologies used, we note Intel Optane, VT-x / d (directed I / O architecture), SSE and AVX2 instructions, SpeedStep function, idle mode support, thermal control. There are also built-in security features, from Secure Key to Boot Guard.
The best processor for the office integrates a graphics co-processor operating at 1.1/1.2 GHz, depending on the modification, supporting up to 64 GB of memory and 4K resolution.
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Among AMD’s best processors, there’s also a mid-range variant. According to its characteristics, it is only slightly inferior to the leader, but it is much cheaper. The processor has 4 cores Raven Ridge, functioning in four threads at a frequency of 3. 5 GHz, after overclocking this figure increases to 3.7 GHz. Fans are able to achieve even better performance, but at the cost of voiding the warranty and risking overheating.
Implemented support for dual-channel DDR4-2993 RAM, cache size — 96/384 KB of the first level, 2 GB of the second and 4 GB of the third level.
There is a Vega 8 eight-core graphics co-processor running at 1.1 GHz — this is enough to work with high-definition 4K video, these characteristics are weak for heavy games. CPU power — 65 watts.
Budget processors
A truly mass segment. We have included here two of the best representatives from both brands. Despite the low cost, these products cannot be called weak — their characteristics are enough to perform most everyday tasks. And even games can be played, with certain restrictions.
Intel Celeron G3930