Compare processors speed online: CPU Benchmark Online | CPU Expert

PassMark PerformanceTest Linux — Linux System Benchmark Software

Windows

Linux

macOS

Mobile

Features

Fast, easy to use, Linux system speed testing and benchmarking. PassMark PerformanceTest™ for Linux allows you to objectively benchmark a Linux system using a variety of different speed tests and compare the results to others.

• Compare the performance of your device to other devices online at http://www.cpubenchmark.net
• A convenient commmand line utility that works without needing to install a desktop environment
• Compare CPU performance with our existing database of CPU’s. Tests results are comparable cross platform with the Windows version.
• The full suite of CPU, and Memory tests from our Windows version is now available for free on Linux systems.

CPU Test Suite
• Integer Maths Test
• Floating Point Maths Test
• Finding Prime Number Tests
• Sorting Test
• Encryption Test
• Compression Test
• Physics Simulation Test
• Extended Instructions Test (SSE, AVX, AVX512, FMA, NEON) (Depending whether x86 or ARM)
• CPU Mark: an aggregate mark to easily compare overall CPU perfromance between systems.

Memory Test Suite
• SQL Database Operations
• Memory Read Cached
• Memory Read Uncached
• Memory Write
• Available RAM
• Memory Latency
• Memory Threaded
• Memory Mark: an aggregate mark to easily compare overall Memory perfromance between systems.

System Requirements

• x86 Version: Supports 64-bit x86 CPU’s
• ARM 32-bit: Supports ARMv7 and ARMv8 CPU’s in AArch42 mode
• ARM 64-bit: Supports ARMv8 CPU’s in AArch64 mode

FAQ

• How to launch PerformanceTest from the command line?
  
  1. Open a new terminal window.
  
  2. Change your working directory by typing «cd path_to_performance_test_folder».
  
  3. Run the program by typing «./pt_linux_x64» or «./pt_linux_arm32» or «./pt_linux_arm64»

• Command Line Arguments
  
  Advanced users can manually change the Number of Test Processes, Test Duration, Number of Test Iterations, enable debug logging, and Autorun using command line arguements

  -p [1-256]: Number of Test Processes to run. Setting more test threads than your system supports will force test duration to Very Long.

  -i [1-100]: Number of Test Iterations to run

  -d [1-4]: [Short, Medium, Long, Very Long]

  -r [1-3]: [CPU only, Memory only, All tests] Autorun tests and export scores to [results_cpu.yml, results_memory.yml, results_all. yml]

  -debug: PerformanceTest will output debug information to debug.log file. Upload is disabled in debug mode since debugging can affect scores.

  e.g. Run PerformanceTest using «./pt_linux_x64 -p 4 -i 5 -d 2 -r 1 -debug»

• Will using autorun (-r) upload the results?
  
  No. Autorun will only export results to a file, it will not upload the results.
  
  To upload results, run PerformanceTest in manual mode i.e. without -r flag.
  
  Run all tests and select «Yes» when prompted to upload your results.

• Permission denied when trying to run from command line?
  
  You need to enable execution permission for the file.
  
  Run «sudo chmod +x ./pt_linux_x64» or «sudo chmod +x ./pt_linux_arm32» or «sudo chmod +x . /pt_linux_arm64″

• Cannot execute binary file when trying to run from command line?
  
  Make sure you have downloaded the correct version for your cpu architecture.
  
  Intel/AMD (64-bit) systems use «pt_linux_x64».
  
  Intel/AMD (32-bit) systems not supported.
  
  ARMv7/ARMv8 (32-bit) systems use «pt_linux_arm32».
  
  ARMv8 (64-bit) systems use «pt_linux_arm64».

• Where should I place the executable file?
  
  If you download PerformanceTest Linux directly from this website it will be in your downloads folder.
  
  You can run it from the downloads folder or place it anywhere on your system.

Legacy x86_64 Version

Roy Longbottom’s PC Benchmark Collection

Benchmarks Compiled for Linux See Details and Android See Details Then Raspberry Pi + Linux See Details A large number of FREE benchmarks and reliability testing programs They mainly run via Windows 9X/NT/2K/XP/Vista/7/8/10, testing CPU, memory, buses, disks, networks, graphics and more. Most have been arranged to run via Linux and on Android based phones and tablets, followed by conversions to run on Raspberry Pi via Linux. They are mainly packaged in zip or tar.gz files that can be downloaded and uncompressed into their own folders. No installation process is necessary — just click and go Results are displayed and saved in text log files Performance tables are provided from numerous PCs dating back to 80486 CPUs up to Phenom II X4 and Core i7 with 64 bit results via Windows XP Pro x64, 64 Bit Vista, Windows 7, 8 and 10  Performance Monitoring Windows Perfmon CPU and I/O usage statistics running benchmarks. View   C/C++ Code See C++ in Files. View   & Source Code for C, Java, Fortran, Basic, VB View   SSE, SSE2, 3DNow, CUDA Assembly code instructions — See SSE+ in Files. View CUDA Parallel Computing View Performance tables Including 64 bit and dual core results, are now in HTML format. Select From Here   Multi-Threading, OpenMP For Hyperthreading and Multi CPU, See New Programs. View Later OpenMP View   64 Bit Windows Most PC benchmarks converted. See New Programs. Includes 64-Bit Windows 7 reports. View Old Scores and Programs Results from pre-1960 CPUs to modern times. View   DOS and OS/2 PC benchmarks. View   Not Just CPU Speed See Memory for Cache and RAM PC benchmarks View and Paging Tests. View   Out Of The Box and Online For Networks, USB, Firewire, Compact Flash etc. View and OnLine Tests View Copyright (C) Roy Longbottom 1997 — 2016. Free for any non-profitable purpose. Results See Results tabs in Files list below — those for 64 bit varieties are included. CPUSpeed.htm provides a summary of many results for CPU, cache and RAM speed based on %MIPS/MHz and %MFLOPS/MHz. PC Benchmark Files Cut down Android compatible results format versions of these Intel desktop benchmarks, but from later 32 bit and 64 bit compilers, are provided in WinTablet.zip. Results are included in some of the following reports and in Android Benchmarks.htm. ZIP File Test Description Including C++ = C/C++ Source Code SSE+ = SSE/SSE2/3DNow Assembly Code BenchNT CPU — Classic Benchmarks from the past More Details  Results  Download C++ WhatCPU CPU — CPUID, MHz, maximum speed More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+ BusSpd2K Cache, RAM — Maximum memory and bus speeds More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE3DNow Cache, RAM — Speed using SSE, SSE2, 3DNow More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+ RandMem Cache, RAM — Serial and Random memory speed More Details  Results  Download C++ FFTGraf CPU, Cache, RAM — Fast Fourier Transforms More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+   CPUSpeed. htm — Summary results of above Results MemSpd2K Cache, RAM — Memory speed with calculations More Details  Results  Download C++ DiskGraf Disks, USB, Firewire, Networks — Serial, Random and DMA speed More Details  Results  Download C++ CDDVDSpd As Diskgraf + CD/DVD/Compact Flash — Large/Small files More Details  Results  Download C++ IOSpeed Combines DiskGraf and CDDVDSpd tests More Details  Results  Download C++ BMPSpd CPU, RAM, Disk, Graphics, Paging — Image Processing More Details  Results  Download C++ VideoWin Graphics — Windows functions More Details  Results  Download C++ VideoDD1 Graphics — DirectDraw functions More Details  Results  Download C++ VideoD3D Graphics — Direct3D functions More Details  Results  Download C++ TestOGL Graphics — OpenGL functions More Details  Results  Download C++ JavaDraw Graphics — Java Drawing Functions More Details  Results  Download Java+ SSE3DNow Reliability/Burn-in — CPU/Cache/RAM, SSE/SSE2/3DNow More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+ Burn9XNT Reliability/Burn-in — CPU and Disk More Details  Download BusSpd2K Reliability/Burn-in — CPU, cache and RAM More Details  Results  Download C++ BusSpd2K Paging Tests — RAM and disks More Details  Results  Download C++ BenchNT Reliability/Burn-in — CPU Floating Point More Details  Download C++ CudaMflops1 nVidia Graphics CUDA Benchmark and Reliability/Burn-in Tests More Details  Download C++ RAMFill System — RAM and Disk Fillers with quick test More Details  Download — New Online Tests — See Online Benchmarks. htm More Details  Load HTM — New Dual Core and 64 bit benchmarks More Details  Most programs were compiled using Watcom C/C++ with some via Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 Pro in order to use SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow assembly instructions. Dual/Quad Core and 64 Bit PC Benchmark Files File Contents Including C++ = C/C++ Source Code SSE+ = SSE/SSE2 Assembly Code Win64.zip EXE files and results — 64 and 32 bit benchmarks using SSE/SSE2 — CPUID, Livermore, Linpack, Whetstone and Dhrystone More Details  Download DualCore. zip EXE files and results — 64 bit and 32 bit benchmarks — CPUidMP, BusMP, RandMP, WhetstoneMP More Details  Download Win64.htm Description and analysis of results View  DualCore.htm Description and analysis of results View  NewSource.zip C/C++ and Assembly code for above 64 bit and 32 bit benchmarks Download C++ SSE+ Video64.zip Source code, example results and 64 bit compilations of BMPSpeed, VideoWin, VideoDD1 and VideoGL1 benchmarks plus a new variety of VideoD3D using DirectX 9 functions, including PixelShader 2.0 More Details  Download C++ 64 Bit Graphics Tests.htm Description and comparison with 32 bit results of benchmarks in Video64. zip View  More64bit.zip 64 bit compilations of different versions of FFTgraf Benchmark More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+ More64bit.zip 64 bit SSE64 from SSE3DNow Benchmark More Details  Results  Download C++ SSE+ More64bit.zip 64 bit SSEburn64 from SSE3DNow/SS3DSoak Reliability Test Details  2 CPU Results  4 CPU Results  Download C++ SSE+ More64bit.zip 64 bit IntBurn64 from BusSpd2K Reliability Test More Details  Results  More Results  Download C++ More64bit.zip 64 bit IntBurn64 Paging Tests More Details  Results  Download C++ More64bit. zip 64 bit DiskGraf64 and CDDVDSpd64 benchmarks More Disk  More CD  Download C++ OpenMPMflops.zip 64 and 32 bit OpenMP floating point benchmarks, plus Cache/RAM speed and other tests to explore peculiar behaviour More Details&nbsp Results  Download C++ GigaFLOPS-Benchmarks.zip Updated versions of OpenMP MFLOPS and CUDA MFLOPS plus MP-MFLOPS using same calculations with up to 64 threads, also a version using Qpar, Microsofts proprietary equivalent of OpenMP More Details&nbsp Results  Download C++ Linux Versions  BurnIn64.htm More details and example results including dual core CPUs for SSEBurn64, IntBurn64 and D3D tests with CPU temperatures View  BurnIn4CPU. htm Further performance and temperature results on a quad core CPU with Windows 7, using the same tests as BurnIn64 and more View  64 Bit Disk Tests.htm More details of DiskGraf64 and CDDVDSpd64 with results on disk, CD, DVD, LAN, USB, Compact Flash View  Vista64.htm Summary of benchmark results on Core 2 Duo with 64-Bit Vista View  Windows7-64.htm Summary of 64 bit benchmark results using Windows 7 on quad core Phenom II and Core i7 processors View  Paging.htm 32/64 bit results and problems using XP x64, 64-Bit Vista and 64-Bit Windows 7 View  Hyperthreading. htm DualCore and OPenMPMflops benchmark results from a Netbook using Intel Atom CPU and showing effects of in-built Hyperthreading View  QuadCore. zip Source code and EXE files — 64 bit and 32 bit benchmarks — CPUidMP, BusMP, RandMP, WhetstoneMP for up to 8 CPUs or Hyperthreads More Details  Download Quad Core 8 Thread.htm Results of new versions of benchmarks that test 4 to 8 processors or Hyperthreads View; ReadyBoost.htm ReadyBoost tests with heavy paging on Core 2 Duo with 64-Bit Vista View  linux multithreading benchmarks.htm Program details and sample results via 32-Bit and 64-Bit Linux using various processors. Execution files and source code available to download. View  Download These were compiled via Microsoft C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.40310.41 for AMD64 and Microsoft 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13. 10.3077 for 80×86 (or later).

CPU Benchmarks For PCs All benchmarks identify CPU manufacturer, CPU model/features code, main memory size, CPU MHz and Windows version used. Some identify disk partition capacity and free space. BenchNT.zip Classic Numeric PC Benchmarks Category CPU Benchmarks, Cache Benchmarks (some) Metrics MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) and MFLOPS (Millions of Floating Point Operations Per Second) Contents Whetstone Benchmark, Dhrystone Benchmark, Linpack Benchmark, Livermore Loops Benchmark - Optimised and non-optimised, description, source codes, also Visual Basic and MS C/C++ 6. 0 compiled Whetstone Benchmarks Benchmark Original Version View Whetstone Floating/fixed point benchmark for minicomputers Results  More Details Dhrystone Integer benchmark for UNIX systems (Dhrystone 1 and 2) Results  More Details Linpack Floating point benchmark for workstations Results  More Details Livermore Floating point benchmark for supercomputers Results  More Details Reliability All the benchmarks now check numeric results for correctness, mainly for the last pass, but the Livermore Benchmark checks all results for use as a Reliability Test. More Details DOS, OS/2 See OldOnes.htm for DOS, OS/2 and 16 bit versions plus Whetstone source code in different programming languages. View 64 bit See Win64.htm for later 32 bit compilations and 64 bit varieties. View Dual Core See DualCore.htm for dual core CPU Whetstone Benchmark. View Linux See classic_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions. WhatCPU.zip Maximum CPU Speed PC Benchmark Category CPU Benchmark, CPU MHz and CPU type identifier, MMX Benchmark, SSE Benchmark, SSE2 Benchmark, 3DNow Benchmark Metrics CPU MHz, Integer MIPS, Floating Point MFLOPS Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See WhatCPU Results. htm  View   — includes 64 bit results Linux See max_cpu_speeds.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     Uses CPUID machine code instruction to identify the CPU manufacturer, features code and model code (formerly Family, Model, Stepping) Uses RDTSC cycle count instruction to obtain CPU MHz in conjunction with the high resolution timer Executes add instructions to 1, 2, 3 and 4 registers to identify maximum speeds of integer, floating point, MMX, SSE and SSE2 instructions Dual core CPU and 64 bit versions are available — From Here PC Cache and Memory Benchmark Tests BusSpd2K. zip Memory and Bus Speed PC Benchmark Category Cache Benchmark, Memory Benchmark, Bus Benchmark, Reliability/Burn-in Test Metrics Megabytes Per Second at different memory demands Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See BusSpd2K Results.htm  View Linux See memory_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     Uses memory at 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 KB etc. up to 50% of main memory capacity to test L1 cache, L2 cache and RAM via 32 bit (4 byte) integers or 64 bit (8 byte) MMX words The first test loads 4 bytes with 64 byte address increments. On most CPUs, measured RAM speeds can be multiplied by 16 to demonstrate peak bus burst transfer rates Later tests reduce the address increment to the point where all data is read. The last tests load all data to MMX registers, providing a measurement of maximum memory speed BusMP, dual core 32 and 64 bit CPU varieties of the performance tests, are also available. From Here Reliability/Burn-in/Paging Tests/Benchmarks Uses 64 bit MMX instructions and various data patterns to test CPU/L1 cache, L2 cache or RAM IntBurn64, a version compiled for 64 bit operation is also available, using the extended integer registers From Here Dual/Quad Core — BusSpd2K and IntBurn64 can be used to exercise more than one CPU at the same time Paging — BusSpd2K and IntBurn64 have command options for testing paging speeds SSE3DNow. zip SSE, SSE2, 3DNow Memory PC Benchmark Category Cache Benchmark, Memory Benchmark, SSE Benchmark, SSE2 Benchmark, 3DNow Benchmark, Reliability/Burn-in Test Metrics Megabytes Per Second at different memory demands and maximum MFLOPS Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See SSE3DNow Results.htm  View Linux SSEfpu See memory_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     Tests are run with a range of data sizes to provide maximum speed measurement via L1 cache, L2 cache and RAM Calculations are via assembler coded SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) floating point instructions (as available) For comparison purposes, the same tests are carried out using normal i837 floating point instructions SSE64, a version of the benchmark compiled for 64 bit operation is in More64bit. zip Download Reliability/Burn-in Tests/Benchmarks This has Run buttons for SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow to run a CPU, Cache or Memory test using random floating point numbers with results checked for correct or consistent values The Cache Tests tend to produce the highest CPU temperatures (higher than BusSpd2K) Dual Core and Quad Core — Options to test multiple CPUs are included More64bit.zip includes SSEBurn64, a 64 bit variety of the Reliability Test Results — Dual Core Quad Core

MemSpd2K.zip Memory PC Benchmark Category Cache Benchmark, Memory Benchmark with calculations Metrics Megabytes Per Second at different memory demands Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See MemSpd2K Results. htm  View Linux variation See linux_openmp.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     The tests are run with a range of data sizes to provide measurement via L1 cache, L2 cache and RAM They have moderate processing using 32 bit integers, 32 bit single precision and 64 bit double precision floating point The way in which memory is allocated highlighted a severe performance problem on the first Intel P4 CPUs RandMem.zip PC Serial/Random Access Memory PC Benchmark Category Cache Benchmark, Random Access Memory Benchmark Metrics Megabytes Per Second at different memory demands Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See RandMem Results. htm  View Linux See memory_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     Demonstrates cache and memory speeds with indexing overheads using serial and random access Four tests run are serial read, random read, serial read/write and random read/write using 32 bit integers and 64 bit double precision floating point numbers Random access produces relatively slow performance where memory bus burst transfers are 64 bytes (or more) RandMP, a dual core CPU variety, is also available From Here FFTGraf.zip FFT Benchmark For PCs Category FFT Benchmark, CPU Floating Point Benchmark, Cache Benchmark, Memory Benchmark Metrics Milliseconds per pass at different FFT sizes Contents Original, optimised and SSE/SSE2/3DNow benchmarks, description and all source code Results See FFTGraf Results. htm  View Runs code for Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs) of size 1024 (1K) to 1048576 (1024K) using single and double precision floating point Produces performance information using data from caches or memory Much data access is on a skipped sequential or random basis producing relatively slow performance where memory burst reading is involved Version 1 — original optimised C/C++ code Version 2 — further optimised for more efficient use of caches and assembly code to make more effective use of burst data Version 3 — assembly code converted to use SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow instructions There are also 64 bit versions From Here Example graph Single precision and double precision The graph shows size plotted against milliseconds divided by size in K. On-Line Benchmarks See details and run from Online Benchmarks.htm File space was limited on the original server used for these benchmarks, so the facility to run tests without downloading and unzipping was avoided. These benchmarks are: Whetstone Benchmark Java Version — This Classic Benchmark measures processor speed, executing floating point and integer calculations. Results can be compared with other PC CPUs and computers from the distant past. Loading Time Images — These are single images, sized 100 kBytes and 1 MBytes, in uncompressed BMP, compressed GIF and compressed JPG formats. The smaller sizes are for use on dial-up connections. Loading Time Numerous Icons — The tests load either 100 or 400 GIF icon files, each sized 70 Bytes. These incur heavy and varying overheads depending on system hardware, operating system, connection speed and type of browser. See JavaDraw for more On-line Benchmarks Disk and Peripherals Tests DiskGraf.zip DiskGraf and CDDVDSpd Storage Media PC Benchmarks Category DiskGraf — Disk Benchmark, DMA/Bus Speed Benchmark, Other Storage Media Benchmark, Network Speed Benchmark Metrics Megabytes Per Second serial write/read and DMA read at different block sizes then milliseconds per read random access, CPU utilisation Contents Benchmark, description, program to display graphs from log file data plus DiskGraf Source Code Results See DiskGraf Results. htm  View Linux See and Details linux_disk_usb_lan_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     This measures disk write and read speeds of multiple files at different block sizes, producing graphs of speed and CPU utilisation Also it does the same for bus/DMA speeds, by repetitively reading data from the disks buffer, and measures random reading time of various sized files The benchmark can also be used to measure speeds of other peripherals such as USB or Firewire disks, Compact Flash Memory Card Readers or network drives There is also a 64 bit version From Here IOSpeed Storage Media PC Benchmark Category IOSpeed — Disk Benchmark, DMA/Bus Speed Benchmark, Other Storage Media Benchmark, Network Speed Benchmark, as DiskGraf + CDDVDSpd and same as above Linux tests. Metrics Megabytes Per Second serial write/read and DMA read, milliseconds per write and read random access, then time to write, read and delete numerous small files Contents Benchmark, Description, Source Code Results See IOSpeed.htm  View Measures speed writing and reading five files each of 8 MB, 16 MB and 32 MB Measures writing and reading speed of cached files Repetitively reading same data to measure bus speed Measures response time random reading and writing 1 KB blocks from data size between 2 MB and 128 MB Speed and running time is measured writing, reading and deleting 500 small files, between 2 KB and 64 KB PC Peripherals DiskGraf. zip CDDVDSpd Storage Media PC Benchmark Category CDDVDSpd — CD Benchmark, DVD Benchmark, LAN Benchmark, USB Benchmark, Firewire Benchmark, Compact Flash Benchmark, Disk Benchmark Metrics Megabytes Per Second and Run Time writing/reading/deleting large and small files Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See CDDVDSpd Results.htm  View Option to read files of 1 MB+ from any source Option to write, read and delete one large and 520 small files Large/small file size selectable between 1MB/2KB to 1GB/2MB Writing speed of small files can be excessively slow on some devices e. g. Compact Flash Memory via Windows XP There is also a 64 bit version From Here PC System Tests BMPSpd.zip Image Processing System PC Benchmark Category CPU Benchmark, Graphics Benchmark, Memory Benchmark, Disk Benchmark, Paging Benchmark Metrics For increasing image sizes — seconds to edit/enlarge, save, load/display and rotate; milliseconds per repeat and Megabytes Per Second scrolling Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See BMPSpeed Results.htm  View Linux See and Details linux_image_processing_benchmarks. tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     The benchmark generates BMP files of 0.5, 1, 2, 4 etc. MB up to 512 MB and carries out the following tests: Enlarge with blur editing (copy with add/divide instructions) and display Save enlargement to disk Load from disk, format and display Copy from memory scrolling Make an extra copy rotating 90 degrees and display Extra copies for editing can result in memory demands of up to 2.5 times RAM size, leading to paging to/from disk There is also a 64 bit version From Here RAMFill.zip Memory and Disk Occupancy/Test Programs Category System testing aids Metrics Milliseconds to write and read/compare Contents 8 programs and description, 4 to occupy RAM and 4 to use disk space Data size is 4, 16, 64 and 256 MB The programs also carry out simple tests to check data for correctness Disk test data for reading can be resident in the RAM based Windows File Cache space Can be a useful test of system paging using multiple copies PC Graphics Tests All the graphics packages contain the benchmark which runs at the current screen settings and an optional driver program that changes display size and colour settings and runs the tests at each setting. VideoWin.zip Windows Graphics PC Benchmark Category Graphics Benchmark Windows Functions Metrics Millions of Pixels Per Second and Frames Per Second Contents Benchmark, Description and Source Code Results See VideoWin Results.htm  View The first six tests use a small display area and the last two are full screen. BitBlt copy a pattern from memory Draw circles Fill space with colours Set pixel colours Draw lines BitBlt copy a pattern from one part of the screen to another Draw 10000 random length/direction lines Draw 1000 ellipses as a 3D like object There is also a 64 bit version From Here VideoDD1. zip DirectDraw PC Benchmark Category Graphics Benchmark DirectDraw Functions Metrics Millions of Pixels Per Second and Frames Per Second Contents Benchmark, description and source code Results See DirectDraw Results.htm  View DirectDraw BltFast from an off screen surface in video RAM to the screen primary surface DirectDraw Blt (with stretch) from an off screen surface in video RAM to the screen primary surface DirectDraw Blt with COLORFILL to the screen primary surface As Test 3 but using DirectDraw WaitForVerticalBlank (VSYNCH) to clamp the speed to the screen refresh Hz DirectDraw BltFast from a large surface in main RAM to the screen primary surface There is also a 64 bit version From Here VideoD3D. zip Direct3D PC Benchmark Category Graphics Benchmark Direct3D Functions Metrics Frames Per Second Contents Benchmark, description, source code and texture files Results See Direct3D Results.htm  View Rotating egg, solid shading Rotating egg, wireframe Rotating egg, solid with WaitForVerticalBlank (VSYNCH) set to demonstrate monitor refresh Hz Wireframe drawing of 500 cubes within cubes, generating 6688 triangles per frame The last four tests involve a camera moving up and down a tunnel with increasing numbers of moving objects, textures and lighting effects. This produces up to 2220 triangles per frame The Direct3D Retained Mode used for this benchmark is not supported on the latest compilers. In order to test a 64 bit CPU with D3D, a variety was produced using DirectX 9 functions, including some of the same tests as above. A 32 bit variety was compiled and is also in Video64.zip and described in 64 Bit Graphics Tests.htm From Here. This can also be used to check the availability of Pixel Shader 2.0 and Vertex Shader 2.0. TestOGL.zip VideoGL1 OpenGL PC Benchmark Category Graphics Benchmark OpenGL Functions Metrics Frames Per Second Contents Benchmark, description, source code and texture files Results See OpenGL Results. htm  View Linux See and Details linux_opengl_benchmarks.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions. Also, see below.           The first six tests are similar to those in VideoD3D with a camera moving up and down a tunnel with increasing numbers of moving objects and textures The last two tests represents a real application for designing kitchens. The first is in wireframe format, drawn with 23,000 straight lines. The second has colours and textures applied to the surfaces, the textures being obtained from photographs of ceramic tiles There is also a 64 bit version From Here The Linux version has four of the tunnel tests and both those for kitchen design, but texture sizes are different The original VideoGL1 uses OpenGL functions initiated through Windows functions. The Linux version uses GLUT, OpenGL Utility Toolkit, with identical functions. GLUT works across all PC and workstation platforms. So, identical code was compiled to run under Windows. The execution files are included in the tar.gz file. Java PC Benchmarks.zip Including JavaDraw Benchmarks Category Graphics Benchmarks On-Line and Off-Line Java Drawing Functions Metrics Frames Per Second Contents Benchmarks, source codes and image files, also off-line Java Whetstone Benchmark files Results See javadraw.htm  View The benchmarks are in JavaDraw. class files that can be translated and run on both Windows and Linux based systems. The off-line versions are run from a Windows Command Prompt or Linux Terminal. The on-line varieties are run via .HTM files stored on a host system. Six 10 second tests are run: 1. Display PNG Bitmap Twice Pass 1 2. Display PNG Bitmap Twice Pass 2 3. Plus 2 SweepGradient Circles 4. Plus 200 Random Small Circles 5. Plus 320 Long Lines 6. Plus 4000 Random Small Circles OpenMPMFLOPS.zip OpenMP Parallel Computing Benchmark Category Parallel Computing Benchmark — using multiple processors automatically Metrics Floating Point MegaFLOPS and GigaFLOPS Contents Benchmark, sample results and source code Description See OpenMP MFLOPS. htm  View   Includes links to free compatible Microsoft C++ compilers. Linux See linux_openmp.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     OpenMP is a system independent set of procedures and software that arranges automatic parallel processing of shared memory data when more than one processor is provided. This option is available in the latest Microsoft C++ compilers. The benchmark executes the same functions, using the same data sizes, as the CUDA Graphics GPU Parallel Computing Benchmark (See below). Varieties provided are: 64-Bit Compilation for multiple or single CPUs, using SSE instructions 32-Bit Compilation for multiple or single CPUs, using original PC i387 instructions 32-Bit Compilation for single CPU only, using SSE instructions The benchmark has been run using 64 Bit Windows 7 and earlier 64 Bit versions of Windows. It demonstrates that a single program can provide significant performance gains with dual and quad core processors. The ZIP file now contains other benchmarks converted to run using OpenMP and described in OpenMP Speeds.htm. Observations are that performance with smaller data arrays can be extremely slow, due to high startup overheads, and wrong numeric results can be produced with careless use of OpenMP directives. GigaFLOPS-Benchmarks.zip — New MP MFLOPS, CUDA, OpenMP and Qpar Tests Category Parallel Computing Benchmarks — using multiple Cores/CPUs or GPUs Metrics Floating Point MegaFLOPS and GigaFLOPS Contents Benchmarks, sample results and source code Description See GigaFLOPS Benchmarks. htm  View Linux Versions Details can be found Here In this series, four types of benchmarks are available, using OpenMP and Qpar, Microsofts proprietary equivalent, both with automatic multiprocessing, CUDA for GeForce graphics, and MPMFLOPS, CPU benchmark with multithreading (up to 64 threads). All carry out the same calculations of the form x[i] = (x[i] + a) * b — (x[i] + c) * d + (x[i] + e) * f with 2, 8 or 32 operations per input data word. They also check the numeric result for consistency, and this identifies differences in numeric calculations on using the various instruction sets. See above for more information on the OpenMP benchmark and below for CUDA. CudaMFLOPS1.zip Graphics Parallel Computing Benchmark Category Parallel Computing Benchmark — using the numerous graphics processing elements Graphics Processor Reliability/Burn-in Test Metrics Floating Point MegaFLOPS and GigaFLOPS Contents Eight Benchmarks — Single and Double Precision, 32 bit and 64 bit, CUDA 2. 3 and 3.1, sample results and source code. Description See CUDA1.htm  View   Includes links to free CUDA software and compatible C++ compiler. See also CUDA2.htm for Double Precision results  View See also CUDA3 x64.htm for details of versions produced using CUDA Toolkit 3.1 and compiled for 64 bit PCs   View Linux See linux_cuda_mflops.tar.gz containing benchmarks and source code compiled using Linux GCC with 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions.                     CUDA, from nVidia, provides C/C++ extension programming functions to use GeForce graphics processors for general purpose computing. The graphics can have tens to hundreds of processing elements that can be easily used for parallel computing. The first benchmark, CudaMFLOPS1, demonstrates some best and worst case performance using varying data array size and increasing processing instructions per data access. A double precision version is now available where most but not all speeds are much slower than using single precision. There are three scenarios: New Calculations — Copy data to graphics RAM, execute instructions, copy back to host RAM Update Data — Execute further instructions on data in graphics RAM, copy back to host RAM Graphics Only Data — Execute further instructions on data in graphics RAM, leave it there The benchmark program can also be used as a graphics processor reliability/burn-in test via a command parameter specifying running time. Numeric results are checked for consistent values and errors are reported — Example Results. Performance Monitoring Benchmarks and other tests were carried out whilst running Windows Perfmon performance logging to measure CPU and I/O activity on a one second sampling basis. For such as disk and LAN activity, measurements used were bytes read and written along with reads and writes (blocks transferred), or packets sent and received over a network. The statistics help to explain why performance is different from expectations. File Description   Monitor1.htm USB and Firewire disk and CPU activity copying files using Copy/Paste, Xcopy and Robocopy via 64-Bit Vista, XP x64 and 32-Bit Vista, using Optimise For Performance, Optimise For Quick Removal with consideration of the use of Windows File Cache. View Report Monitor2.htm Benchmark results plus disk and CPU activity copying files via 64-Bit Vista, using one of the current fastest disk drives via eSATA and USB connections. View Report Monitor Gigabit LAN.htm Benchmark results plus LAN, disk and CPU activity copying files and running benchmarks over Gigabit LAN connections, between PCs with 64-Bit Windows 7, 64-Bit Vista and 64-Bit Windows XP. View Report PC Reliability and Burn-in Tests Diagnostic test programs tend to check all functions but at a slow rate and via DOS. These tests run via Windows and exercise the hardware at high speeds using a wide variety of number values or data patterns with results being checked for correctness. All Benchmarks/Tests can be run via command lines to log results and exit automatically. A series of commands in a BAT file can produce a comprehensive system burn-in test, in some cases for more than one CPU. See documentation in ZIP files and Results below. File Description   Burn9XNT.zip CPU floating point test and disk/buffer/bus test Download BusSpd2K.zip Uses 64 bit MMX instructions to test CPU/L1 cache, L2 cache or RAM. More Details  Download  SSE3DNow.zip Uses SSE, SSE2 or 3DNow instructions and random floating point numbers to test CPU/L1 cache, L2 cache or RAM. High CPU temperatures can be produced. More Details  Download  BenchNT.zip The Livermore Loops floating point benchmark (CPU/cache test) can be run in Reliability Testing Mode. More Details  Download Graphics Single tests from these benchmarks can also be selected and run for extended periods. Tests using CUDA for nVidia graphics are also available. More Details  CUDA Details More64bit.zip BusSpd2K and SSE3DNow Reliability Tests have been modified and compiled for 64 bit operation as IntBurn64 and SSEburn64. These can also be used as dual core or quad core CPU burn-in and performance tests. Details — Dual Core Quad Core  Download  Video64.zip A new D3D benchmark, using DirectX 9 functions, has been produced, with 32 and 64 bit versions. Included are facilities for use as burn-in tests in conjunction with the above CPU programs. More Details Burn-in Tests  Download  Burnin32.htm Sample results with temperature graph, including dual core processors. View Burnin64.htm Sample results Windows XP x64 and 64-Bit Vista with temperature graph, including dual core processors. View Burnin4cpu.htm Sample results 64-Bit Windows 7 with temperatures and performance gains using a quad core processor. View linux burn-in apps.htm Program details and sample results 32-Bit and 64-Bit Ubuntu with temperatures and performance gains using various processors. View  Download Paging Tests Programs compiled for 32 and 64 bit working are available to demonstrate maximum memory that can be allocated for a single data array within Virtual Memory and measure associated data transfer rates with paging to/from disk. They are normally run initially with lower demands with little or no paging. Other benchmarks can show the impact of paging on a simulated real application handling bitmap images. Latest report is for Vista tests using ReadyBoost, showing significant performance improvements with heavy paging. File Description   BusSpd2K.zip Uses one of the twelve Reliability Tests to minimise testing time. More Details  Download  More64bit.zip For IntBurn64, the 64 bit version of BusSpd2K Reliability Tests. Download  BMPSpd.zip Image Processing Benchmark with large bitmaps. More Details  Download  Video64.zip For BMPSpeed64 64 bit version. More Details  Download  Paging. htm Sample results Windows XP, 2000, XP x64, 64-Bit Vista and Windows 7 View ReadyBoost.htm ReadyBoost tests with heavy paging on 64-Bit Vista View RAMFill.zip Simple programs that can more than fill RAM More Details  Download  Program Source Code As shown under Files, most zip files now include C++ source code, some having assembly code using SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow instructions. Assembly code using standard instructions is included in the source for WhatCPU, MemSpd2K, BusSpd2K and FFTGraf. Whetstone Benchmark source codes are in Whets.bas (Basic), Whetsvb.txt (Visual Basic), WhetsVB.xls (Visual Basic/Excel Spreadsheet), Whets.for and Whetd.for (Single and double precision Fortran), OnLineTests. zip (HTML/Java). There is also Whets.c, a general C/C++ version, with timers for various computer systems. These can be obtained via OldOnes.htm. See New Programs for various benchmark source codes as compiled to run at 64 bits. Some of these also include 64 bit assembly code. Historic Data and Older Benchmarks Speed measurements provided are in terms of Kilo (thousands) of Instructions Per Second (KIPS), Millions of Instructions Per Second (MIPS) and/or Millions of Floating point Operations Per Second (MFLOPS). CPU MHz is also shown, when available. File Description   CPUMix.htm Processor speed calculations in KIPS, based on mixes of instructions for commercial and scientific applications for some computers from pre-1960 to the 1970’s. View MIPS.htm Published speed claims for more than 2000 computers produced between 1980 to 1996. Costs and other configuration details are also shown. Details of IBMs larger mainframes and PC CPUs up to 2004 have also now been included in the latter. View Whetstone.htm Whetstone benchmark results mainly 1970’s to 1990’s. From 1980’s results include derived MIPS and MFLOPS ratings. An extra section has been added just for PCs, to include results up to 2006. View OldOnes.htm Numerous older files including CPU, memory, disk and graphics benchmarks to run via DOS and OS/2, older versions with additional facilities, source codes and results. View About Roy E-Mail: roy@roylongbottom. org.uk Roy Longbottom (born 1935) joined an organisation that later became the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), the British Government computer purchasing department, in 1960. He was initially a technical consultant on computer reliability. This was followed by a period of responsibility for planning and supervising acceptance trials at departments and universities, then by added responsibility for evaluating new scientific computers (including the first supercomputers). Many of the projects included benchmarks. He then moved on to become a full time Performance Engineer/Consultant with work including sizing of systems, benchmarks and trouble shooting for commercial applications. These included huge mainframe based on-line systems, numerous UNIX configurations and, later, PC networks. His first involvement in programming was during the acceptance trials period, when he wrote a suite of programs (in Fortran) to exercise all of the hardware via Operating Systems, including checking for correct results. These were used successfully during hundreds of pre-delivery and on-site acceptance tests. Some of the programs (mainly FOPRxx processor tests) were adopted by various suppliers for inclusion in their development tests. His book «Computer System Reliability» was published (Wiley) in 1980. During the 1980’s, for personal gratification, he wrote (and sold) software for the Z80 based Sinclair Spectrum (T/A ROYBOT), the first product being an assembler. This was followed by a sort of Operating System, a graphics package and database manager. He obtained an early retirement in 1993 then, for a period, acted as a paid consultant (ROYBOT Ltd.). He also spent time on learning «C», Visual Basic and Java to produce versions of the Whetstone benchmark in these languages specifically for PCs. This was followed by the same PC format versions of the other Classic Benchmarks. In 1997, he arranged for the Classic Benchmarks to be uploaded to Compuserve’s Benchmark and Standards Forum. The other benchmarks were written and uploaded during the following period. The material was transferred to the PC Hardware (PCHW) Forum in 1999, then to the new Compuserve PC Hardware Forum in 2004. Besides producing this site Roy Longbottom’s PC Benchmark Collection (New Home), Roy has created others for family and friends: Roy Longbottom Ancestry — roylongbottom.org.uk/ancestry/ Sons Ceramic Tile Showroom — artceramica.co.uk Friend’s Cleaning Business — roomstoclean.com Friend’s Cleaning Business — commsroomcleaning.com Artist Friend — rayhardcastleart.com End — Updated January 2016

Best benchmarks software of 2022

(Image credit: Microsoft)

The best benchmarks software makes it simple and easy to test your computer’s performance, as well as compare your hardware.

This is especially important when building your own PC, or else when looking to upgrade your existing one by comparing processors and other options.

Next you may want to make sure that all the various components are functioning at their absolute best to deliver optimal performance for your PC. For that, you will need a benchmarking application. 

A typical benchmarking application assesses three core factors: clock speeds, temperatures, and voltage. It also records the rendered frames per second and compares them to these parameters to grade your desktop’s average performance. 

Running a proper benchmark can help you gauge your desktop’s overall productivity, diagnose issues with hardware components, and even overclock your rig for the best results. If you are having trouble picking the best benchmarks software for your PC, our expert guide is here to rescue you.

We’ve also featured the best business PCs.

---

(Image credit: HWMonitor)

1.

HWMonitor

Hardware monitoring goes cost-free

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Simple and lightweight

+

Features real-time updates

Reasons to avoid

—

Lacks advanced benchmarking capabilities

HWMonitor brands itself as a hardware monitoring solution rather than a benchmarking application. However, it is one of the most used tools among gamers. The software features a simple interface that clearly displays your computer’s voltage, power consumption, temperature, clock speeds, and fan speeds. 

HWMonitor is particularly useful if you are trying to figure out why your desktop is heating up. High temperatures are one of the most common reasons behind frequent shutdowns, and HWMonitor can help you diagnose the issue by recording your CPU and GPU temperatures under different settings and varying degrees of load. 

HWMonitor’s classic version is the most popular and is available for free. However, there is also a more powerful paid version that is capable of monitoring devices remotely and has an improved interface for power users. It allows for up to 20 remote connections and comes with 2 years of free updates.

(Image credit: 3DMark)

2. 3DMark

Popular gaming benchmark suite that’s handy for overclockers

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Wide range of gaming benchmarks

+

Stress testing for overclockers

+

See how your PC compares to other gaming rigs

Reasons to avoid

—

Not cheap (unless you grab it on sale)

3DMark is one of the top benchmarking suites when it comes to putting your PC through its paces in terms of gaming performance. The package includes many gaming benchmarks that you’ll likely recognize the name of, including 3DMark Fire Strike (an older DX11 test), Time Spy (DX12) and Port Royal (ray tracing) among others.

All of these benchmarks will give you a score and allow you to compare that result with other PCs using the same (or indeed different) hardware components, letting you know how well you’re doing comparatively to other 3DMark users – which there are plenty of – and perhaps giving you the opportunity to see if your system needs to be tweaked. Furthermore, you get some estimated frame rate performance figures for a selection of popular games provided by 3DMark, too.

And of course, these benchmarks are going to be useful for anyone looking into overclocking their rig – plus 3DMark gives you the ability to stress test the stability of your overclock (by running a looped benchmark over and over).

3DMark offers a free demo (which you can download on Steam) to check out its benchmarking capabilities for yourself.

(Image credit: UserBenchmark)

3. UserBenchmark

All-in one benchmarking suite

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Free

+

Grades more than just your CPU and GPU

Reasons to avoid

—

Controversial ratings

UserBenchmark offers a free all-in-one suite that can be used to benchmark your CPU, GPU, SSD, HDD, RAM, and even USB to help you pick the best hardware for your needs. The software is built by a team of engineers as a passion project rather than a corporate offering. 

Apart from generating a slew of data alongside the net score of your hardware, it offers suggestions on how to improve performance. Every single hardware component is graded specifically based on its performance in the tests, allowing you to pinpoint exactly where your desktop is underperforming. 

Users should keep in mind, however, that there are a lot of controversies involving this software. The team has repeatedly come under heavy criticism for personal attacks against tech journalists, while the benchmarks themselves have been accused of rigging the tests to put one hardware company in front of the other.

(Image credit: Cinebench)

4. Cinebench

CPU-centric benchmarking solution at its best

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Tests real-world performance

+

Good for high-end computers

Reasons to avoid

—

CPU-centric tests

If you are looking for a comprehensive performance evaluation for your CPU and GPU, CineBench has you covered. The free software is available on most platforms and uses image rendering tasks to grade your rig’s capabilities. 

Cinebench grades CPU and OpenGL performance using 4D image rendering tests. It is particularly useful for high-end systems that scale beyond the purview of typical benchmarking software. The reports it generates are practical and based on real-world performance, dedicated to people involved in the content creation market. 

The best part of Cinebench’s comprehensive 4D rendering evaluation is that it makes use of all your CPU’s available cores, stressing it to the very limit of its hardware. The product is very useful when you’re trying to build a high-end computer and need recommendations on what components to use.

(Image credit: Geekbench)

5. Geekbench

One of the best benchmarking applications for Windows

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Cross-platform comparisons

+

Performance-hungry tests like augmented reality

+

Supports the new Vulkan API for GPUs

Reasons to avoid

—

Paid software

—

Commercial use requires separate license

Geekbench is one of the best benchmarking applications for Windows, but it’s also available on Android, iOS, macOS, and Linux.  

It benchmarks your CPU through a variety of different tests, including a few that rely on newer applications like augmented reality and machine learning. For GPUs, Geekbench enables you to utilize a range of APIs, including OpenCL, CUDA, Metal, and even Vulkan. The benchmarking application also boasts the unique ability to perform cross-platform benchmark comparisons, which you can use to compare your Apple iPhone to your Android device, or your Windows computer to a Mac. 

Geekbench is available on Windows, macOS, or Linux. You can buy a license that will let you run the software on either of three platforms for a single user. Geekbench Pro is a professional-grade solution that lets you use the software commercially and features command-line tools and a standalone mode.

(Image credit: MSI)

6. MSI Afterburner

A must-have for overclocking your GPU

Today’s Best Deals

Reasons to buy

+

Real-time performance measurement

+

Overclocking utility for your GPU

+

Custom fan profiles

MSI Afterburner is must-have software for anyone who wants to overclock their graphics card. It is completely GPU-centric, with no support for CPUs, but the amount of control it provides is what makes it truly remarkable. 

MSI Afterburner works with any GPU regardless of its brand. Not only does it give you detailed hardware specifications for your graphics card, but it also gives you full control over your GPU, including aspects like fan speeds, voltage, and clock speeds. The software also features an FPS counter that lets you measure your GPU performance in real-time. 

MSI Afterburner is a free utility. If you are looking for gold-standard software to safely overclock your GPU, it is the only tool you will need.

We’ve also featured the best free PC cleaner.

---

Which benchmarks software is best for you?

When deciding which benchmarks software to use, first consider what your actual needs are, as sometimes free platforms may only provide basic options, so if you need to use advanced tools you may find a paid platform is much more worthwhile. Additionally, your choice may also be decided on whether you’re just curious about your hardware options and choices, or whether you have a professional need to benchmark different aspects of your hardware.

How we tested the best benchmarks software

To test for the best benchmarks software we first set up an account with the relevant platform, then tested the service across a number of different hardware devices in different situations. The aim was to push each benchmarks software platform to see how useful its basic tools were and also how easy it was to get to grips with any more advanced tools.

Read how we test, rate, and review products on TechRadar .

Ritoban Mukherjee is a freelance journalist from West Bengal, India. His work has been published on Tom’s Guide, TechRadar, Creative Bloq, IT Pro Portal, Gizmodo, Medium, and Mental Floss. Ritoban is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers.

How We Test Processors | PCMag

(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)

The process of reviewing desktop CPUs at PCMag carries on core traditions that date back to the establishment of PC Labs in 1984: We compare each CPU to others in its category on the basis of price, features, upgrades from previous generations, and in-house performance tests.

To evaluate performance, we use a suite of software benchmark tests and real-world applications and games, carefully chosen to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a tested CPU to see how it handles different situations. Our desktop CPU testing breaks down into two rough classes: productivity testing, and graphics testing.

In some cases, we make use of standardized tests created by established benchmark developers. We’ve also created our own tests where needed. We regularly evaluate new benchmark solutions as they hit the market and overhaul our testing procedures, when appropriate, to ensure that we can accurately reflect the effects of the latest technologies.

(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)

In November 2021, in advance of the launch of the 12th Generation «Alder Lake» desktop processors from Intel, we rolled out a new suite of benchmarks, replacing those we’d been using for several years prior. This move to a new benchmark regimen came with retests of 15 different desktop CPU processors, spanning the past two years of releases from both Intel and AMD. Our current methodology is outlined below.

---

Productivity and Content Creation Performance Testing

Our first task is evaluating a CPU’s productivity performance in scenarios reflecting everyday use, as well as heavy workloads like image rendering and video editing.

We use a small group of testbed PCs to benchmark CPUs, which are chosen according to the socket type and generation of a CPU. For example, our recent retest covering just the past few years of releases required four different motherboard models from Intel (based on LGA 2066, LGA 1156, LGA 1200, and LGA 1700 sockets), while AMD needed three (two AM4s, and an sTRX4). The one constant component in all our test runs (when integrated graphics testing isn’t in play) is the high-end Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition, which is installed in each testbed we build.

Cinebench R23, POV-Ray 3.7

First up on the list of benchmarks we run is Maxon’s CPU-crunching Cinebench R23 test. We run this test at the All Cores setting to make use of all available processor cores and threads, as well as at the Single Core setting. Derived from Maxon’s Cinema 4D modeling and rendering software, Cinebench stresses the CPU rather than the GPU to render a complex image.

Cinebench R23

The result is a proprietary score indicating a PC’s suitability for processor-intensive workloads, when used with software that is fully threaded. Think of it as an all-out processor deadlift.

Next up is our POV-Ray 3.7(Opens in a new window) benchmark, a reliable way to test both single-core and multi-core rendering performance for a single image. POV-Ray renders offscreen and reports back a render time in each case.

Windows 10 does not have Intel’s Thread Director enabled, which is why some 12th Gen chips we’ve tested appear slower in the POV-Ray and Handbrake (below) tests. These issues are not present when the same benchmark is run on a Windows 11 build. We note the operating system differences in each CPU review.

Geekbench 5 Pro, Handbrake 1.4

Primate Labs’ Geekbench Pro(Opens in a new window) is another industry-common processor workout. It runs a series of CPU workloads designed to simulate real-world applications ranging from PDF rendering and speech recognition to machine learning. We record Geekbench’s Multi-Core Score. (Higher numbers are better.)

Geekbench Pro

Geekbench is especially handy because, unlike other common benchmark tests, it has versions for many operating systems (including Apple’s macOS and iOS), which can enable valuable cross-platform comparisons.

Our HandBrake video-editing trial is another tough, threaded workout that’s highly CPU-dependent and scales well as you add cores and threads. In this test, we put a stopwatch on test systems as they transcode a standard 12-minute clip of 4K video (the open-source Blender demo short movie Tears of Steel(Opens in a new window))(Opens in a new window) to a 1080p MP4 file.

Handbrake 1.4

We use the HandBrake app’s Fast 1080p30 preset for this timed test. Lower results (i.e., faster times) are better.

---

7-Zip, Blender

We also run the 7-Zip(Opens in a new window) benchmark, using the common compression utility. This test measures how quickly the CPU can compress, and then decompress, a dummy file using the Lempel-Ziv-Markov chain Algorithm, or LZMA. The benchmark result is displayed in MIPS, which is a measure of million instructions per second. The more MIPS, the faster your CPU will be at both creating and extracting compressed files.

7-Zip

Following that, we run Blender(Opens in a new window), an open-source 3D content creation suite for modeling, animation, simulation, and compositing. We record the time it takes for Blender’s built-in Cycles path tracer to render two photorealistic scenes of BMW cars. Lower times are better.

---

PugetBench for Photoshop and Premiere Pro

Our final productivity tests are Puget Systems’ PugetBench for Photoshop(Opens in a new window) and PugetBench for Premiere Pro(Opens in a new window), which are testing utilities that use Adobe’s seminal content creation programs to measure a PC’s aptitude for multimedia editing.

PugetBench for Adobe Photoshop

PugetBench executes a broad range of general and GPU-accelerated Photoshop and Premiere Pro tasks, including opening, resizing, rotating, and saving an image; editing video; adding filters that include Lens Correction, Smart Sharpen, and Field Blur; and more.

The PugetBench Overall Score is a numeric value based on a 50/50 split between the general tasks. (Higher numbers are better.) This benchmark exercises both the system’s CPU and its graphics chip or card, as well as its memory and storage subsystems. As with POV-Ray and Handbrake, we expect higher scores for PugetBench tests on 12th Generation Intel chips with testbeds running Windows 11 than those running Windows 10, due to the assist of Thread Director.

---

Graphics Performance Testing

Judging graphics performance requires using tests that are challenging to every CPU, yet yield meaningful comparisons across the field. We use some benchmarks that report proprietary scores and others that measure frames per second (fps), the frequency at which the graphics hardware renders frames in a sequence, which translates to how smooth the scene looks in motion. We test performance both with a discrete graphics card (our GeForce RTX 3080 Ti staple card mentioned earlier) and with the CPU’s integrated graphics, in the latter case if it is so equipped.

Discrete Graphics Testing (With GeForce Card)

The first graphics test we employ is UL’s 3DMark(Opens in a new window). The 3DMark suite comprises a host of different subtests that measure relative graphics muscle by rendering sequences of highly detailed, gaming-style 3D graphics. Many of these tests emphasize particles and lighting.

We run two of 3DMark’s DirectX 12 (DX12) tests on all CPUs: Night Raid, and Time Spy. The former is the more modest of the two workloads, suitable for PCs with integrated graphics. It’s meant for lower-power, mainstream systems and renders at a simulated resolution of 1,920 by 1,080 pixels. Time Spy is much more demanding, suitable for high-end PCs with the latest graphics cards. It renders at a simulated resolution of 2,560 by 1,440 pixels. The test leverages features of the DX12 API, including asynchronous compute, explicit multi-adapter, and multi-threading.

The 3DMark Time Spy test selection screen

Each test yields an Overall Score, which is what we report. (We don’t break out the graphics and CPU scores.) Higher numbers are better.

Recommended by Our Editors

The Best CPUs for 2022

The Best Budget CPUs for 2022

How to Choose the Best PC Power Supply

Then we break out the games. At the end of the day it’s hard to beat full retail video games for judging gaming performance. Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, F1 2021, and Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege are modern, high-fidelity and high-performance titles with built-in benchmarks that illustrate how a system handles real-world video games at various settings.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Rainbow Six: Siege and F1 2021 in particular are sensitive to both the RAM speeds and maximum single-core boost clock when run in 1080p.

We run all three games at their maximum graphics-quality presets, at both 1080p resolution and 3,840 by 2,160 pixels (4K). Our performance charts in reviews detail the exact settings used.

Integrated Graphics Testing

If a CPU we’re testing comes with an integrated graphics processor (IGP) on board, we’ll also run the chip through a series of less-demanding synthetic and gaming benchmarks to see how it handles without the assistance of a dedicated GPU. This matters for shoppers who will not install a dedicated graphics card in their systems, but rely on the IGP.

These IGP tests include all three of the games mentioned above (Assassin’s Creed, F1, and Rainbow Six) with the quality levels shifted down to «Low,» run at 1080p and 720p resolutions. We also run one more pass of 3DMark, this time selecting only the Night Raid run, which is more suited for low-end systems than Time Spy.

---

Overclocking and Cooling Testing

Finally, after all the benchmarks have been completed with stock profiles applied (aside from XMP II on the memory), we then run our CPUs through a 10-minute stress test in Cinebench R23 to see what their maximum thermal output is during sustained load. We record these results using the component monitoring software CoreTemp(Opens in a new window).

AMD Ryzen Master

Once this run is complete and the result recorded, we then move on to overclocking the CPU. We will use a variety of techniques to achieve this depending on the CPU: First, all CPUs are run once on the «Automatic Overclocking» profiles available in Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU)(Opens in a new window) and AMD’s Ryzen Master Utility(Opens in a new window), depending on the chip maker in question. These tools evaluate everything from the model to the silicon quality before auto-applying an overclock that sits within the recommended guidance of Intel or AMD.

After this, a more aggressive set of overclocks will be manually applied at the BIOS level to see where the chip tops out before crashing during either games or productivity tasks. We achieve the highest stable overclock possible through this process, and then report the benchmark results of the games and applications that were run with the higher clock speed applied to record our final results.

All of our AMD and Intel testbeds contain closed-loop, all-in-one liquid coolers that are 240mm or larger (360mm in the case of the latest Intel 12th Generation testbed, and with AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper HEDT platform). This means our results may not be representative of possible overclock profiles or temperature levels for your desktop, as variables in radiator size, fan count, case design, and silicon quality can affect the end result.

---

Authoritative Guides to Buying the Best CPUs

All this testing is a key part of how PC Labs informs the content and choices within our roundups and reviews on PCMag.com. Performance is just one factor in our overall picture of a CPU’s worth, which also includes assessments of its feature set, value for the money, and availability in the marketplace.

(Photo: Zlata Iveva)

Our main best CPUs guide is the place to start for a wide-ranging overview of the top choices across categories (as well as a deep explainer on all things related to CPU buying). We also have a gaming CPUs roundup for those of you who have that specific use case in mind, while those hunting for a good deal should read our guide to the best budget CPUs that you can buy at the moment. We update these guides in sync with major releases to the market, and when we bestow an Editors’ Choice award to a given CPU.

Get Our Best Stories!

Sign up for What’s New Now to get our top stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Thanks for signing up!

Your subscription has been confirmed. Keep an eye on your inbox!

Sign up for other newsletters

CPU Benchmarks for Lucas-Lehmer/Trial Factor

AMD A4-4300M APU with Radeon HD Graphics	2994	50. 58	53.53	63.07	82.27	91.29	99.64
AMD Athlon II X2 220	2804	95.47	100.50	81.37	112.29	230.01	164.11
AMD Athlon II X2 270	3412	30.00	33.87	42.15	55.31	64.65	73.59
AMD E-300 APU with Radeon HD Graphics	1297	432.94	373.88	469.31	846.50	708.08	785.26
AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core	4041	37.81	43.36	53.15	68.85	82.81	90.63
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Quad-Core	3316	17.80	18.94	26.89	28.71	36.09	39.50
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G with Radeon Vega Graphics	3759	14.79	17.99	21.04	25. 38	30.22	34.37
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G with Radeon Vega Graphics	3994	14.08	17.84	22.73	26.22	30.11
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core	3266	29.35	33.21	41.01	51.75	59.56	69.97
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Six-Core	3553	26.89	30.82	37.77	46.92	55.95	63.49
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Six-Core	3754	27.32	35.96	43.47	49.40	59.59	65.17
AMD Ryzen 5 3450U with Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx	2492	19.87	22.07	28.39	23.75	28.73	32.20
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core	4058	11.76	13.11	17.07	20.77	24. 72	28.13
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core	3977	18.45	21.07	24.77	30.35	34.66	40.06
AMD Ryzen 5 5600H with Radeon Graphics	4159	5.76	6.48	8.33	9.71	11.90	13.59
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core	3345	28.71	32.29	40.79	50.49	58.49	66.45
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core	3739	13.28	16.91	20.01	24.10	27.32
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core	3922	31.32	104.89	37.27	47.30	54.45	69.30
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core	4341	5.66	6.36	8.23	9.86	11.91	13.73
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core	4218	13. 57	14.89	19.49	23.87	27.17	30.93
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core	4114	6.24	6.99	8.81	10.66	12.79	14.81
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core	4699	5.45	6.09	7.68	9.33	11.28	12.97
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core	4965	4.94	5.34	6.89	8.23	10.14	11.65
Intel Atom C2758 @ 2.40GHz	2376	86.80	92.90	120.02	151.16	188.25	200.82
Intel Celeron N2940 @ 1.83GHz	2144	136.11	174.93	198.05	269.15	342.28	391.30
Intel Celeron 1000M @ 1.80GHz	1774	37.33	43.63	51.37	67. 48	78.95	97.91
Intel Celeron G1620 @ 2.70GHz	2662	27.19	34.14	36.12	46.73	57.87	65.06
Intel Celeron G550 @ 2.60GHz	2442	36.28	36.52	50.07	64.69	73.75	89.78
Intel Core i3 530 @ 2.93GHz	2936	30.05	37.31	41.03	50.90	73.28	81.27
Intel Core i3 560 @ 3.33GHz	3604	29.55	34.85	41.33	51.57	62.65	81.35
Intel Core i3-6006U @ 2.00GHz	1676	15.61	16.91	24.04	27.77	32.42	38.46
Intel Core i3-7100 @ 3.90GHz	3912	9.39	11.04	14.75	18.84	22.90	25.10
Intel Core i3-9100F @ 3. 60GHz	3201	8.58	8.70	10.47	12.47	16.04	17.11
Intel Core i5 661 @ 3.33GHz	3448	25.63	29.82	37.52	45.43	53.47	60.60
Intel Core i5-10400 @ 2.90GHz	3952	6.19	6.75	8.83	10.50	12.59	14.60
Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz	2930	15.28	16.98	21.34	26.01	33.44	36.73
Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz	3073	13.52	15.50	19.66	24.45	29.58	34.25
Intel Core i5-3550 @ 3.30GHz	3416	14.04	15.01	18.87	22.58	28.50	34.21
Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz	3176	9.63	11.13	14.30	17. 22	20.68	23.94
Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.20GHz	3161	9.55	10.96	13.99	16.51	19.90	23.16
Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz	2972	9.43	10.55	13.51	16.72	19.41	22.14
Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz	3465	8.58	10.09	12.78	15.26	18.19	20.83
Intel Core i5-4690S @ 3.20GHz	3252	11.97	13.64	17.57	20.63	25.52	28.49
Intel Core i5-5257U @ 2.70GHz	3100	9.56	10.94	13.81	16.56	19.71	23.13
Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz	3172	8.11	8.81	11.47	13.64	16.46	18.25
Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3. 30GHz	3375	7.32	8.16	10.63	12.81	15.02	16.34
Intel Core i5-7400 @ 3.00GHz	3091	8.55	10.13	13.78	15.10	18.41	20.36
Intel Core i5-7440HQ @ 2.80GHz	3344	10.02	11.80	13.78	16.35	20.63	22.93
Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz	3601	6.90	7.92	9.58	11.91	14.24	17.53
Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz	3264	8.63	10.27	15.39	17.95	18.05	19.30
Intel Core i5-9500T @ 2.20GHz	3378	7.24	8.00	10.35	12.23	14.78	16.88
Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz	4062	6.84	7.55	10.06	11. 62	14.42	16.47
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz	2933	30.06	33.40	42.86	51.85	62.57	70.80
Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.67GHz	2711	34.92	40.04	52.89	63.71	74.18	84.64
Intel Core i7 X 980 @ 3.33GHz	3421	35.92	49.55	50.14	63.13	75.05	100.68
Intel Core i7-10510U @ 1.80GHz	3837	7.29	7.87	10.16	11.99	14.56	16.62
Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz	3457	11.13	13.14	16.16	19.48	24.35	28.54
Intel Core i7-5500U @ 2.40GHz	2403	32.55	37.74	48.52	59.63	69.63	77.90
Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4. 00GHz	4091	6.65	7.23	9.43	11.29	13.65	15.62	1.76
Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz	3679	12.36	13.83	17.43	20.64	26.77	30.47
Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20GHz	4199	6.66	7.65	9.71	11.49	14.05	16.10	1.87
Intel Core i7-7820X @ 3.60GHz	3287	9.88	10.98	14.28	17.07	20.86	27.04
Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz	4349	7.71	8.68	11.12	13.61	15.90	18.53
Intel Core i7-8550U @ 1.80GHz	3124	12.52	15.08	19.60	20.68	29.90	32.10
Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz	3863	6.81	7.53	9. 65	11.43	13.96	16.23
Intel Core i7-8750H @ 2.20GHz	3603	7.71	8.46	11.85	13.30	17.04	18.48
Intel Core i7-9750H @ 2.60GHz	3859	7.42	7.14	10.25	11.71	13.73	15.85
Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz	4295	10.43	10.42	12.82	16.99	20.89	22.44
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz	2995	30.82	32.66	42.64	51.43	62.10	67.85
Intel Core2 Duo P7350 @ 2.00GHz	1990	43.81	48.23	61.36	76.05	93.92	105.37
Intel Core2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz	2389	38.29	41.00	52.08	67.71	83.38	88. 05
Intel Core2 Duo T8300 @ 2.40GHz	2393	57.05	59.12	69.23	90.38	110.89	114.56
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz	2839	31.21	34.58	42.67	49.79	63.84	67.70
Intel Pentium 4 3.00GHz	3000	57.56	65.94	80.02	102.50	118.85	135.58
Intel Pentium N3530 @ 2.16GHz	2557	256.21	254.25	251.54	514.50	355.48	376.07
Intel Pentium 4415Y @ 1.60GHz	1607	34.01	37.81	48.53	59.91	72.02	79.65
Intel Pentium B960 @ 2.20GHz	2133	36.60	40.04	51.56	61.23	75.82	93.10
Intel Pentium B970 @ 2. 30GHz	2251	635.31	671.09	868.74	1046.84	1144.43	818.85
Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz	2860	28.50	39.78	70.03	65.54	67.01	78.54
Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz	3504	15.86	17.34	23.71	27.67	32.29	37.17
Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz	3599	14.58	16.17	20.60	25.41	30.83	34.36
Intel Pentium G620 @ 2.60GHz	2523	33.04	37.76	47.13	60.09	71.16	79.44
Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz	2770	24.86	30.30	38.11	44.55	51.73	58.34
Intel Pentium Dual E2160 @ 1.80GHz	1797	119.93	145. 60	218.58	162.30	551.64	403.64
Intel Pentium Silver N5000 @ 1.10GHz	2592	38.13	44.26	55.92	70.35	81.82	94.21
Intel Xeon X5482 @ 3.20GHz	3191	26.15	28.87	35.66	45.68	53.58	59.94
Intel Xeon E3-1225 V2 @ 3.20GHz	3351	12.18	13.95	17.36	20.60	25.25	30.78
Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 @ 3.50GHz	3503	8.48	9.22	11.63	14.31	17.18	19.52
Intel Xeon E3-1275L v3 @ 2.70GHz	3177	7.47	8.48	10.80	13.01	15.54	17.80
Intel Xeon E31220 @ 3.10GHz	3122	18.19	19.01	25.82	28.81	32. 64
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 @ 3.50GHz	3494	9.40	10.68	13.70	16.59	19.97	23.12
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz	2950	14.08	16.40	20.27	30.28	30.44	35.66
Intel Xeon E5-2643 v4 @ 3.40GHz	3494	7.80	8.77	11.88	14.70	17.68	19.97
Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 @ 2.50GHz	3231	18.59	20.31	25.86	30.61	38.10	42.43
Intel Xeon E5-2690 v3 @ 2.60GHz	2653	9.77	10.82	14.03	16.68	20.19	23.21
Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz	3003	13.51	16.80	19.72	23.42	29.55	35.89
Pentium Dual-Core E5300 @ 2. 60GHz	2604	32.47	34.92	45.37	54.17	79.39	72.02
Pentium Dual-Core E6500 @ 2.93GHz	2928	32.09	35.17	44.48	54.34	76.13	72.97
Unknown Intel	1748	14.55	15.90	20.14	24.32	29.20	32.53

Best CPU & GPU Render Benchmarks

There are many kinds of Benchmarks out there.

CPU Render Benchmarks, GPU Render Benchmarks, Benchmarks for Gaming, Storage, or Bandwidth are just some of them, and benching your System can be a lot of fun.

Especially in the World of building a Workstation for 3D, VFX and Animation, putting your CPU, GPU, and other components through a series of tests and comparing them to the performance of other Systems and configurations is so much fun that sometimes you upgrade, tune or overclock your system, just to see those numbers rise.

Most importantly, though, the benchmark should be able to simulate a real-world workload, because this is what it’s all about: Figuring out what Hardware Components will get you the maximum performance for the specific type of work you do.

There are many different CPU and GPU Rendering Benchmarks that will help you find and compare the best Hardware Components for your needs.

What are the CPU and GPU responsible for in 3D / 2D Workloads?

Before we dive into what Benchmarks to use, let’s look at what components in your System are mainly responsible for which tasks. This way, you’ll be able to identify what component is responsible for the type of work you do daily.

CPU, Important Component in (among others):

• CPU-Rendering
• Calculating 3D Scene-States (Objects, Modifiers, Deformers and the like)
• Real-Time Previews
• Simulation
• Animation-Calculation (Rigs, Dynamics)

GPU, Important Component in (among others):

• GPU-Rendering
• Displaying Calculated Scene Contents (Viewport)
• Displaying Polygons / Hi-Res sculpting (after they run through CPU-Calculations)

What makes CPUs and GPUs strong in Content-Creation workloads?

Now that we know what the CPU’s and GPU’s main tasks are let’s look at what features these Hardware components need for the highest performance.

CPU

• CPU-Rendering: The more cores and higher the clocks, the better
• Calculating Scene States: The higher the single-core clock and boost-clock, the better
• Simulation: The higher the single-core clock and boost-clock, the better (unless you have lots of independent sims that can be calculated simultaneously)
• Real-Time Previews, Animation Calculations: The higher the single-core clock and boost-clock, the better

GPU

• GPU-Rendering: The more CUDA-Cores or Compute Cores, the more VRAM, the higher the GPU and VRAM clock, the better
• Displaying Scene Contents / Displaying Polygons / Hi-Res sculpting: Ordinarily, a variety of OpenGL features, the higher the VRAM capacity, the better, the higher the Triangles/s, the better.

A common misconception is, that you need a faster GPU if the Viewport in your 3D-Application becomes slow.

Even though the GPU is responsible for displaying Scene-Contents, most of the time, the CPU, that first has to calculate deformers, modifiers or rigs, before the GPU can display the resulting object/mesh, is responsible for sluggish viewport performance.

Unless you display RAW Meshes without any Mesh-modifications, your CPU ordinarily is the culprit in bad viewport performance.

Reasons for benchmarking your Hardware

There are many obvious reasons for benchmarking your system, but there are quite a few that not everyone knows about:

Are your components performing as they should?

The most obvious reason for benchmarking your CPU and GPU is to compare your results with online Databases and see if your Hardware components are performing as they should.

Possible problems when not reaching common speeds

If your system does not reach the performance and benchmarking scores other users are reaching, be sure you don’t have any background programs running while benchmarking.

It is best to benchmark your System right after a clean install.
When benching your CPU and reaching scores that are too low, be sure your BIOS settings, such as Turbo-Boost and RAM XMP, are set correctly and the CPU is not running too hot.

When benching your GPU and not reaching common scores, again, be sure no other software is running in the background, and your GPU driver is up-to-date. That said, though, sometimes reverting to an older Driver does the trick.

Here are some other typical GPU issues:

• Is the GPU overheating and therefore throttling?
• Does your Motherboard’s PCIe Slot have sufficient PCIe-Lanes for your GPU?
• Are you using an incorrect PCIe-Slot?
• Is your PSU providing ample power to the GPU?
• Does your GPU have all the necessary Power-Cables attached?
• Are your drivers up to date?

GPU performance doesn’t always scale linearly when using multiple GPUs. Using 2 GPUs might give you 1.9 times the performance, 4 GPUs might only give you 3.5 times the performance, depending on the benchmark you are using.

Check out this article about GPU-Hardware for more in-depth information on this topic.

Octane does a fairly good job at scaling performance linearly, but Redshift, for example, will usually give you less performance per GPU, the more GPUs you add.

GPU Name	VRAM (GB)	OctaneBench Score	Price $	Performance/Dollar
8x RTX 2080 Ti	11	2733	9592
4x RTX 2080 Ti	11	1433	4796
2x RTX 2080 Ti	11	693	2398
RTX 2080 Ti	11	355	1199
GPU Name	VRAM (GB)	Octanebench Score	Price $	Performance/Dollar

Planning on upgrading your PC? Bench it first!

Another great time to benchmark your Computer is when you are planning on upgrading your PC or buying an entirely new PC.

You’ll only know if spending all that money is worth it if you know what performance improvement over your current Hardware you can expect.

Image-Source: Cinebench

A higher price doesn’t always mean higher performance for your specific workloads. Maybe you only need to upgrade a specific bottleneck that slows down your system’s overall performance and not get an entirely new PC.

If you have a certain amount of budget you are willing to spend, benchmark your current system first. This will give you the possibility to roughly calculate what you can expect when getting new components within the budget you’re working with.

Want to optimize your system so it runs the best it can?

Overclocking and tuning/optimizing your system can greatly improve performance. There is no way around knowing if your optimizations have any effect if you don’t have a benchmarking baseline of your system’s default performance.

Benchmarks are also great for testing your system’s stability after overclocking.

Utilizing online Renderfarms

With internet connections getting faster and faster, online Renderfarms are more popular than ever. Calculating the cost of rendering a Scene on a Render Farm usually requires knowing your own System’s speed to be able to extrapolate.

Here is a screenshot of the Cost Estimator on the Ranch Computing Renderfarm. Notice how you have to know your Cinebench Score to be able to calculate the cost of rendering your scene on the Renderfarm:

Image-Source: ranchcomputing.com

It is also great to know the scores of your own PCs, If you have many of them, to best distribute specific tasks that run optimally on the different systems. Benchmarking your PCs regularly also notifies you of any performance issues that might arise after some time, that otherwise might go unnoticed.

Best Benchmark for testing your CPU Performance

Ok, so here they are: The actual Benchmarks, that let you test your System and Hardware Components’ performance.

The most popular Benchmark for testing Multi-Core and Single-Core performance of your CPU, especially in the 3D-Rendering world, is Cinebench.

Image-Source: Cinebench

The Cinebench CPU Render Benchmark in itself is quite simple. It renders a pre-defined Scene on your CPU.

Since rendering Scenes on your CPU is something you (in the CG Industry) probably do quite often, this CPU benchmark comes very close to real-world applications and is based on the 3D-Software Cinema 4D.

Cinebench can both render the Scene on all Cores, for multi-Core performance, and on a single Core, to obtain single-Core performance results.

Be sure to check “Advanced Benchmark” in the Menu to be able to test your single-core CPU performance too.

Image-Source: Cinebench

Just hit “Run” on any of the Benchmarking options, and the Benchmark will do its thing, presenting a score after completion.

Download the Cinebench CPU Render Benchmark here.

Another great Benchmark for testing your CPU Render performance is the VRAY Benchmark. It is quite similar to Cinebench, as it renders a predefined Scene on your CPU (or GPU see below) and has an extensive online database to compare results in various configurations.

Download the Vray CPU Render Benchmark here.

Best Benchmark for testing your GPU

There are 3 very popular GPU render engines: Octane, Redshift, and V-RAY. All of these have GPU Render Benchmarks based on their engines. All of these,  though only run on Nvidia GPUs with CUDA-Cores.

Octane and VRAY GPU Benchmarks are easy to download, the Redshift Benchmark is currently only available for Customers.

Image-Source: Octanebench

The procedure is the same as in Cinebench. Hit “Run” to get your results.

Download the GPU Render Benchmark OctaneBench here and VRAY Bench here.

Benchmark Results

Here are some CPU Benchmark results for Cinebench R23 Single and Multi with performance/price ratio:

CPU Name	Cores	Ghz	Single Score	Multi Score
Intel i9 12900KS	16	3. 4	2082	27796
Intel i9 12900K	16	3.2	2003	27483
Intel i9 12900F	16	2.4	1988	26455
Intel i9 12900	16	2.4	1988	26454
Intel i7 12700K	12	3.6	1939	23488
Intel i5 12600K	10	3.7	1918	17660
Apple M2	8	3.5	1701	8538
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X	16	3.4	1684	28782
Intel i9 11900K	8	3.5	1671	16211
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X	12	3.7	1670	22046
Intel i5 12400	6	2.5	1647	12344
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X	8	3.8	1596	15228
Intel i7 11700K	8	3.6	1595	15011
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	6	3. 7	1593	11201
Apple M1 Ultra	20	3.2	1570	21740
Intel i5 11600K	6	3.9	1564	11277
Apple M1 Max	10	3.2	1555	12422
Apple M1 Pro	10	3.2	1543	12170
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS	8	3.0	1538	12844
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G	8	3.8	1535	14350
Apple M1	8	3.2	1528	7799
AMD Ryzen 5 5600	6	3.5	1472	11429
Intel i9 10900K	10	3.7	1415	18034
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	16	3.5	1406	26375
AMD Threadripper Pro 3955WX	16	3.9	1401	27175
AMD Ryzen 5 5500	6	3.6	1372	10710
Intel i9 10850K	10	3. 6	1367	16820
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT	8	4.2	1355	12955
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT	12	4.1	1354	18511
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	8	3.9	1346	13848
Intel i7 10700K	8	3.8	1345	13302
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	8	3.6	1345	12195
Intel i9 9900K	8	3.6	1343	12470
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT	6	3.8	1330	9945
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	6	3.8	1323	9526
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	12	3.8	1312	18682
AMD Threadripper 3970X	32	3.7	1308	46874
AMD Threadripper 3960X	24	3.8	1307	34932
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X	4	3. 8	1299	6787
Intel i7 9700K	8	3.6	1285	9428
AMD Threadripper 3990X	64	2.9	1262	75671
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	6	3.6	1245	9073
AMD Threadripper Pro 3975WX	32	3.5	1244	43450
AMD Threadripper Pro 3995WX	64	2.7	1231	73220
Intel i5 9600K	6	3.7	1187	6596
Intel i9 9900X	10	3.5	1182	13994
AMD Threadripper 2950X	16	3.5	1135	18797
Intel i9 9980XE	18	3.0	1114	27093
AMD Ryzen 3 3100	4	3.6	1105	5423
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	8	3.7	1102	10140
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	6	3. 6	1094	7523
Intel i9 9960X	16	3.1	1075	17953
Intel i9 9920X	12	3.5	1067	14793
Intel i9 10980XE	18	3.0	1063	25490
AMD Threadripper 1920X	12	3.5	1054	15038
AMD Threadripper 1950X	16	3.4	1027	19635
AMD Threadripper 2990WX	32	3.0	1005	29651
AMD Threadripper 1900X	8	3.8	1005	8979
AMD Epyc 7702P	64	2.0	993	48959
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X	16	4.5	2062	40795
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X	12	4.7	2044	30020
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X	8	4.5	2010	20144
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X	6	4. 7	1981	14780
CPU Name	Cores	GHz	Single Score	Multi Score

Head over to this post for Octanebench GPU results with performance/price ratio.

An extensive VRAY Benchmark List can be found here.

Need help benchmarking your CPU / GPU? What scores did you reach? Let us know in the comments!

CGDirector is Reader-supported. When you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Comparison of processors and video cards online CPUNEX

Detailed comparison of processors and comparison of video cards in terms of performance, evaluation of synthetic benchmarks. It’s time to choose the best processor or graphics card for your computer! The best service for comparing GPU and GPU specifications.

Latest comparisons

Intel Atom x6425E

Intel Pentium G4400T

AMD A4-3300

Intel Core i5-4202Y

AMD E1-2500

Intel Atom Z3745D

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3GT OCV2

MSI GeForce RTX 3090 Ventus 3X 24G

MSI GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER GAMING X

ASUS Phoenix GeForce GTX 1660TI

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 D5 2G

MANLI GeForce GTX 1050Ti Gallardo (F357G+N452-10)

PowerColor Radeon RX 6800

ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan

Colorful GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4G-V

ZOTAC GAMING GeForce GTX 1650 OC GDDR6

Intel Core i5-10600K

Intel Pentium Gold G6500

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 AMP Edition

Gainward GeForce RTX 2060 Phoenix

MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Ventus 3X 8G OC LHR

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 2070 8G

Palit GeForce RTX 3080 Ti

Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 GHOST OC

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1650 OC (GDDR6)

Intel Core i3-3220

Intel Core i5-4690

Processors

TOP 10

AMD Ryzen 9 processors5950X

99%

Intel Core i5-11260H

95%

Intel Core i5-11500T

85%

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

100%

Intel Core i7-1160G7

100%

Best Integrated Processor

Fire Strike and CompuBench OpenCL benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

99%

Intel Core i5-11260H

95%

Intel Core i5-11500T

85%

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

100%

Intel Core i7-1160G7

100%

Better overall performance

CPU Benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

99%

Intel Core i5-11260H

95%

Intel Core i5-11500T

85%

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

100%

Intel Core i7-1160G7

100%

The best processors in terms of price-quality ratio

Fire Strike and CompuBench OpenCL benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 95950X

99%

Intel Core i5-11260H

95%

Intel Core i5-11500T

85%

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

100%

Intel Core i7-1160G7

100%

Popular processors

CPU and iGPU benchmarks

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

99%

Intel Core i5-11260H

95%

Intel Core i5-11500T

85%

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

100%

Intel Core i7-1160G7

100%

Video cards

TOP 10 graphics cards

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 GAMING X 2G

96%

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3G OC

96%

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 OC edition 2GB

9four%

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1060 6G 9Gbps ​​

93%

INNO3D GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Twin X2 V2

92%

Best integrated video card

Fire Strike and CompuBench OpenCL benchmarks

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 GAMING X 2G

96%

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3G OC

96%

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 OC edition 2GB

94%

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1060 6G 9Gbps

93%

INNO3D GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Twin X2 V2

92%

Better overall performance

Video card benchmarks

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 GAMING X 2G

96%

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3G OC

96%

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 OC edition 2GB

94%

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1060 6G 9Gbps ​​

93%

INNO3D GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Twin X2 V2

92%

The best video cards in terms of price-quality ratio

Fire Strike and CompuBench OpenCL benchmarks

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 GAMING X 2G

96%

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3G OC

96%

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 OC edition 2GB

94%

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1060 6G 9Gbps ​​

93%

INNO3D GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Twin X2 V2

92%

Popular graphics cards

CPU and iGPU benchmarks

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 GAMING X 2G

96%

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 3G OC

96%

ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 OC edition 2GB

94%

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce GTX 1060 6G 9Gbps ​​

93%

INNO3D GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Twin X2 V2

92%

Popular comparisons

• Processors
• Video cards

Raspberry Pi 4B (Broadcom BCM2711)

Raspberry Pi 3 B+ (Broadcom BCM2837B0)

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

AMD Ryzen 9 3900

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

Intel Core i5-12600K

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

Intel Core i7-8700B

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

Intel Atom E3805

ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3060 V2 OC Edition LHR

ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3060 Twin Edge OC

Gainward GeForce RTX 3080 Phantom+ GS LHR

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G

ASUS Phoenix Radeon RX 550 4G EVO

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Founders Edition

ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 3060 V2 LHR

Palit GeForce RTX 3060 Dual

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Ti OC Edition

KFA2 GeForce GTX 1650 Prodigy

KFA2 GeForce GTX 1650 Prodigy

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Ti OC Edition

Reviews

• All
• Processors (Cpu)
• Video cards

MSI Radeon RX 580 Gaming X 8GRead More

Intel Atom x6425RERead More

MSI Radeon RX 580 Gaming 8GRead More

Intel Core i5-4570SRead more

show more

Intel Core i5-4570SRead more

Intel Atom x6425RERead more

Qualcomm Snapdragon 678Read more

Intel Pentium G4520Read more

show more

Intel Pentium G4520 More

Intel Pentium G4520 More

Intel Pentium G4520 More

Intel Pentium G4520Read more

show more

About the project

We are passionate about electronics and computer technology, so we decided to create a service for you that will help you choose the right processor or video card by simply comparing the characteristics or results of synthetic tests (benchmarks).

Thanks to the efforts of our team, you can use the convenient CPUnex service for free! All processors and video cards from the world’s leading manufacturers are presented here. We are always striving for development, so if you have any comments or suggestions on the site, do not hesitate to write to us!

Report a bugDescription of the bug

Link to source

Comparison of Intel and AMD processors

0407 on the topic:

«Comparison of Intel and AMD processors»
Completed by:
Student of the ML-920 group
Pravorsky Sergey
Teacher
Morgunov D.D.

……………………………………………3

What is a socket…………………………………………………….….……… ……4
Types of intel sockets………………………………………………..….……….……5
Types of amd sockets …………………… ……………………….………………. .…6
What is a processor…………………………………………………………….……7
How the processor works ………………………………………………………..…8
Types of processors and their main manufacturers…………………………………9
Pros and cons of intel……………………………………………………………….10
Pros and cons of amd……………………………………………………………….11
Comparison of amd and intel………………………………………… …………………….12
Conclusion………………………………………………………………..………13
References…………… ……………………………………………………14

3. Introduction

In the computer world, the question of which is better AMD or Intel is provocative and is often followed by
removal of the person who asked it from the discussion. And, nevertheless, this question is very important, because choosing the type of central
processor (CPU), in fact, the user selects the configuration of the future personal computer (PC). In
2019, when there is sluggish competition in the world of chip manufacturers, there is not much difference in device or
performance between these chips. Attention! Even 10-15 years ago, Intel and AMD processors even accessed the
memory a little differently, and their performance could differ significantly. Now the degree of their similarity to
has increased so much that many are thinking about creating a single chip that supports branded «chips»
products from both manufacturers.
Yes, they certainly have different looks and pinouts, they even have different types of sockets — LGA and
PGA, and even slightly (by about 5%) the set of instructions differs. However, the essence of this remains unchanged — in fact,
are absolutely identical CPUs that have the main sign of similarity — an instruction set compatible with x86.
Project objectives:
Expand the concept of processor
Determine the purpose of the processor
Consider the advantages and disadvantages of amd
Consider the advantages and disadvantages of intel
Comparison of processors

4. What is a socket?

Socket (English socket — connector) — the name of the software interface for providing data exchange between processes. Processes during such an exchange can be executed both on one computer and on different computers connected by a network. Socket —
An abstract object that represents the endpoint of a connection.
Distinguish between client and server sockets. Client sockets can be roughly compared to the end devices of the telephone network,
and server rooms — with switches. A client application (for example, a browser) uses only client sockets, and a server application
(for example, a web server to which the browser sends requests) uses both client and server sockets.
The socket interface first appeared in BSD Unix. The sockets API is defined in the POSIX.1 standard and is supported to some extent by all modern operating systems.
Addresses and ports are used to communicate between machines using the TCP/IP protocol stack. The address is a 32-bit structure for IPv4, 128-bit for IPv6. The port number is an integer in the range from 0 to 65535 (for the TCP protocol).
This pair specifies a socket (a «socket» corresponding to an address and port).
In the exchange process, as a rule, two sockets are used — the sender’s socket and the recipient’s socket. For example, when accessing server
on the HTTP port, the socket will look like this: 194.106.118.30:80, and the response will go to mmm.nnn.ppp.qqq: xxxxx.
Each process can create a «listening» socket (server socket) and bind it to some operating system port
(in UNIX, unprivileged processes cannot use ports less than 1024).
The listening process is usually in a sleep loop, ie wakes up when a new connection comes up. This saves
the ability to check for connections at the moment, set a timeout for the operation, etc.
Each socket has its own address. UNIX family OSes can support many types of addresses, but the INET address and the UNIX address are required. If you bind a socket to a UNIX address, then a special file (socket file) will be created at the specified path, through
which any local processes can communicate by reading / writing from it (see Unix domain socket). Sockets
INET types are accessible from the network and require a port number allocation.
Normally, the client explicitly «attaches» to the listener, after which any read or write to its file descriptor will
transfer data between it and the server.

5. Types of sockets

What sockets does Intel
have? In the marking of this brand, the number indicates the number of contacts. For example, LGA has 1151 out of exactly 1151. Convenient!
Socket 8. 387-pin slot for a Pentium Pro processor.
370. Appeared at 1999 year. It was created under the «Celerons» — stripped down versions of the «Stumps».
423. Created in 2000 for the Pentium 4 — also a kind of legend: a «quality mark» that every computer geek dreamed of.
478. Introduced in 2002. Designed for installation of Pentyukhs and Celerons on Northwood, Prescott and Willamette core architectures.
604. The connector that from 2002 to 2006 was the main one for server Xeons.
PAC418 and PAC611. Used for Itanium CPUs, which Intel developed together with Hewlett-Packard (after rebranding
is referred to as HP).
J (LGA771). For installing server and desktop Xeons and Core 2.
R3 (LGA2011-3). LGA2011 modification, created in 2014.
h5 (LGA 1151). Replacement for the LGA1150, introduced in 2015. In 2017, version 1151v2 appeared, which is currently supported.
R4 (LGA2066). Replacement for LGA 2066 released in 2017.
So, today Intel’s actual slots are 2066 (for top assemblies) and 1151v2 (for mass users). When assembling a new computer
, I recommend focusing on them. It will also be useful to read: «Processors for socket 1150» and «Best processor for
socket 1155″.

6. Types of sockets

Which sockets were produced AMD
Super Socket 7. A modified version of the universal socket, the task of which is to maximize the
computing power.
Slot A. Introduced in 1999 as a solution for the new Athlon CPU, the Pentium III’s main competitor.
Socket A (462). A modification that supported both expensive Athlones and budget Durons and later Semprons.
AM2. Released in 2006 as a replacement for the previous two. Added support for Phenom on K10 architecture.
AM2+. Modified in 2007. Added support for Agena, Toliman and Kuma cores.
AM3. Appeared in 2009. Designed for processors that already supported DDR3.
AM3+. Logical development of the line, announced in 2010. Focused on high performance processors with
Bulldozer architecture.
FM1. Introduced in 2011 as a solution for Fusion architecture hybrid CPUs.
FM2. It has been produced since 2012 for hybrid processors with Trinity and Richland cores.
FM2+. In 2014, support for the Steamroller microarchitecture was added.
AM1. Appeared in 2014 for budget CPUs of the Kabini family with Jaguar microarchitecture.
AM4. In 2016, it was introduced as a slot for Ryzen brand processors based on the Zen architecture.
TR4. Modification for Ryzen Threadripper processors, released in 2017.
As in the previous case, the last two slots in the list are the most relevant at the moment.

7. What is the processor

The whole point is that the central processor (its full name) — as they say, the real heart and at the same time the brain
computer. While it works, all other components of the system unit and the peripherals connected to it also work. He
is responsible for processing various data streams, and also regulates the operation of parts of the system. Central processing unit —
an electronic unit or an integrated circuit (microprocessor) that executes machine instructions (program code), the main
part of the hardware of a computer or a programmable logic controller.
In life, the CPU looks like a small square board the size of a matchbox a few millimeters thick,
, the upper part of which, as a rule, is covered with a metal cover (in desktop versions), and
has a lot of contacts on the bottom. Actually, in order not to crucify, look at the following photos:
Without a command given by the processor, even such a simple operation as adding two numbers cannot be performed, or
recording one megabyte of information. All this requires an immediate appeal to the CPU. As for more complex tasks, such as
launching a game, or editing a video.
It is worth adding to the words above that processors can also perform the functions of a video card. The fact is that in modern
chips there is a place for a video controller that performs all the functions necessary from it, and how video memory uses RAM.
Do not think that the integrated graphics cores are able to compete with video cards of at least the middle class, this is more
an option for office machines where powerful graphics are not needed, but still pull something weak in their teeth. The main advantage of
integrated graphics is the price — after all, you don’t need to buy a separate video card, and this is a significant
economy.

8. How the

processor works From the RAM where a certain program is loaded (let’s say a text editor), the processor’s control unit extracts
the necessary information, as well as a set of commands that must be executed. All this is sent to the
buffer memory (cache) of the CPU;
Information leaving the cache memory is divided into two types: instructions and values ​​that are sent to registers
(these are
such memory cells in the processor). The first go to the instruction registers, and the second to the data registers;
Information from the registers is processed by the arithmetic logic unit (part of the CPU that performs
arithmetic and logical transformations of incoming data), which reads information from them, and then executes the necessary
commands on the resulting numbers;
The resulting results, divided into completed and incomplete, go to the registers, from where the first group
is sent to the CPU cache;
Let’s start this paragraph with the fact that there are two main cache levels: upper and lower. Last received commands and data,
needed to perform calculations go to the upper-level cache, and those not used are sent to the lower-level cache.
This process goes as follows — all information goes from the third cache level to the second, and then gets to the first,
with data that is not currently needed and sent to the lower level, everything is the other way around;
At the end of the computing cycle, the final result will be written to the system’s RAM to free up space
in the CPU cache for new operations. But it may happen that the buffer memory is full, then
unused data will go to RAM, or to the lower cache level.

9. Types of processors and their main manufacturers

There are many types of processors from weak single-core to powerful multi-core
. From gaming and working to average in all
parameters. But, there are two main CPU camps — AMD and Intel’s famous
. These are the two companies that produce the most sought after and
popular microprocessors on the market. The main difference between AMD and Intel
products is not the number of cores, but the architecture —
internal structure. Each of the competitors offers its own
“internal” structure, its own type of processor, which is radically different from the competitor. The products of each of the parties have their own
pros and cons, I propose to take a closer look at them briefly.

10. Pros and cons of intel

Pros of Intel processors:
Has lower power consumption;
Developers focus more on Intel than on AMD;
Better gaming performance;
The connection of Intel processors with RAM is implemented better than that of AMD;
Operations carried out within the framework of only one program (for example, unzipping) are better,
AMD plays in this regard.
Minuses of Intel processors:
The biggest minus is the price. The CPU from this manufacturer is often an order of magnitude higher than that of their main competitor
;
Performance decreases when using two or more «heavy» programs;
Integrated graphics cores inferior to AMD;

11. Pluses and minuses of amd

Pluses of AMD processors:
The biggest plus — the biggest minus of Intel — the price. You can buy a good midrange from AMD, which will be at
solid 4, and maybe even 5 to pull modern games, while it will cost much lower than a processor similar in performance to
from a competitor;
Adequate ratio of quality and price;
Ensure the quality of the system;
Ability to overclock the processor, thereby increasing its power by 10-20%;
Integrated graphics cores outperform Intel.
Cons of AMD processors:
Processors from AMD interact worse with RAM;
More power consumption than Intel;
Buffer memory operation at the second and third levels is at a lower frequency;
Gaming performance lags behind competitors;
But, despite the above advantages and disadvantages, each of the companies continues to develop, their processors become more powerful with each
generation, and the errors of the previous line are taken into account and corrected.

12. Comparison of amd and intel

Feature
Intel
amd
Less,
Price
More
at
almost
volume
same
speed
Higher, but not much. In tests,
is often taken as 100% in one or another
In synthetic tests — 100-100% In
Performance
category
real — 90-95%
Cost of motherboards
High
Low or average
Low performance; level
Medium and high; mid-level
mobile solutions
and cheap discrete graphics cards
Integrated video core
High (above 85°C) From AMD
Temperature
Acceptable (70-85°C)
Mainstream
Power Consumption (TDP)
—
65
Ryzen — similar to Intel
W
Enthusiast — 100 W and above.
CPU
for
From 80 W and above

13. Conclusion

As you already understood, the computer’s central processing unit plays a crucial role in the system. In
of this work, we have analyzed what a computer processor is, what is the frequency of a
processor, what they are and what they are for. How different are some CPUs from others,
what types of processors are. We talked about the pros and cons of the products of two
competing campaigns.
The purpose of my project was to compare two processors, in order to achieve the goal, I performed the following tasks on
: I revealed the concept of what a processor is, determined the purpose of the
processor, considered the advantages and disadvantages of amd, considered the advantages and disadvantages of
intel, Compiled a comparative characteristic of processors.
It is impossible to say which processor is better, somewhere amd outperforms intel, and somewhere with an accuracy of
, on the contrary, these are two wonderful processors, but which processor will be in your
system unit is up to you.

14. References

https://overclockersru.turbopages.org/s/overclockers.ru/blog/TEXHAPb/show/35225/amdprotiv-intel-kto-delaet-processor-luchshe-po-mneniju-techradar
https ://drongeek.ru/sravnenie/kakoj-protsessor-luchshe-intel-ili-amdsravnivaem-i-vybiraem
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page
https://geeksus.ru/hot/kakoj -protsessor-luchshe-amd-ili-intel/

Intel Core i5-12400 test.

Comparison with Core i5-11400 and Ryzen 5 5600X — i2HARD

Examining the performance of the Intel Core i5-12400 in comparison with competitors. Stock and overclocked tests, DDR4 and DDR5.

Many people remember the i5-11400 as a productive, but hot budget employee, which makes you think about choosing a motherboard because of its high power consumption. The replacement i5-12400 should provide not only a 19% increase in IPC, but also higher energy efficiency due to a smaller process technology. It doesn’t have energy-efficient cores like the 12600K has, and the frequency is slightly lower than its predecessor, but something tells us that it will be popular. It’s i5.

To see the progress over the generation, it would be logical to compare the new product with the i5-11400, and the Ryzen 5 5600X will fight from the red camp.

Contents:

• Test stand
• Stock tests
• Synthetic tests
• Stock Cooling Tests
• Tests in games
• Overclocking processors and memory
• Synthetic tests
• Cooling during acceleration
• Tests in games
• Conclusion

Test bench

To see the progress over the generation, it would be logical to compare the new product with the i5-11400, and the Ryzen 5 5600X will fight from the red camp.

• Processor #1: Intel Core i5-11400
• Processor #2: Intel Core i5-12400
• Processor #3: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
• Processor #4: Intel Core i5-12600K