After we recently examined AMD's new FX-8370E processor, today we take a look at the FX-8320E, which is located in the middle of the AMD desktop processors. 8 cores, each with a clock rate of 3,2 GHz, turbo mode, but also a lower TDP of 95 watts are the key data. However, this processor is available for prices starting at 140 euros. Our test explains how the FX-8320E performs in practice.
Intro
With lower TDPs, AMD has responded to the charge of excessive power consumption and recently put the FX-8370E into the race. Now we have the FX-8320E, which also only joins the 95 watt class and tries to re-represent the midfield among AMD's desktop processors.
AMD's motto: You can build high-performance PCs at low prices, and advertise primarily with the eight processor cores, from which very well parallelized software can benefit massively. In addition, the 8320E has a base clock of 3,2 GHz and a turbo clock of around 4 GHz. For comparison: the non-E version clocks at 3,5 GHz in the basic clock and also 4 GHz in turbo mode.
On the following pages we clarify where the FX-8320E is to be classified, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the relatively inexpensive CPU.
Test environment
Hardware: Intel systems
Intel socket LGA-1150
- Intel Core i7-4790K:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i7-4770:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-4670K:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-4670:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The new Haswell processors are operated on the MSI mainboard Z87-G43. We imported the latest beta BIOS V1.2B1 and activated all energy-saving mechanisms in the BIOS. The memory modules used come from G.Skill. It is a 4 x 4 GByte kit of the Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 with the latencies CL9-9-9-24.
- Core i7 3770K:
IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-3570K:
IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i7-2700K:
Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i7 2600K:
Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i5 2500K:
SB architecture, D2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1333
For Intel's “Sandy Bridge” and “Ivy Bridge” processors for the LGA-1155 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 are used, operated on DDR3-1333. The memories are operated with the CL9-9-9-24 2T latencies. That comes as a mainboard MSI Z77A-GD65* used with BIOS version 7751vP0. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
- Core i7-5960X
R2 stepping, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133 - Core i7-4960X
S1 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i7-3960X
C2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
For the processors of the LGA-2011 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 and an ASUS Rampage IV Gene with BIOS 4901 are used. The socket LGA-2011-3 is measured with 4 x 4 GByte Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666, operated with DDR4-2133 and timings of 15-15-15-36. An MSI X99S Gaming 7 with BIOS V17.4 is used as the mainboard.
Hardware: AMD systems
AMD Socket FM2 +
- A10-7850K
Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A8-7600
Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6800K
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 4,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6700
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6500T
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 2,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The processors for FM2 and FM2 + were measured on the MSI A85XA-G65. The Kaveri models and the A10-6800K also on the MSI A88XM-E45.
AMD Socket AM3 +
- FX-8370E:
Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - FX-8350:
Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - FX-8150:
Bulldozer architecture, B2 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The same G.Skill modules are used for AMD's Bulldozer processors for the AM3 + socket as on the Intel systems. That comes as a mainboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula* (990FX chipset) used with BIOS 1703. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
AMD Socket FM2
- A10-5800K
- Trinity architecture, A1 stepping, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, 4 x DDR3-1600
The G.Skill DDR3 memory mentioned above works here as well. The Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 with BIOS F4 is used as the mainboard. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
More hardware
Graphic card:
- MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning
- AMD Radeon HD 3450 (DDR3):
only for measurements of power consumption
Memory:
- 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600
SPD operation: DDR3-1600, 9-9-9-24 at 1,5 volts
- be quiet! DARK POWER 550W R10
Hard disk:
- Seagate ST2000VX000
Cooler:
- Scythe Katana III
- Noctua NH-U12S
- Tenma 72-6185 clamp ammeter
- Voltcraft Energy Check 3000
- Tenma infrared thermometer 72-820
- Metex multimeter M-3640D
- Profitec KD 302 energy cost meter
Software and benchmarks
Operating system and driver
- Windows Ultimate 7 (64-bit) including all updates up to May 2013
- AMD / ATI Catalyst 13.4 WHQL
- Windows 7 supplied drivers for the chipset and network card
CPU benchmarks
- Synthetic benchmarks
- PCMark05 v120_1901
- PCMark 7 v1.4.0
- Euler 3D
- Audio editing
- iTunes 11.0.2
- LAM 3.98.4 (compiled with Visual Studio 2008)
- Nero AAC Encoder 1.5.1
- OggEnc 2.87
- image editing
- video editing
- HandBrake 0.9.9 RC1 64bit
- Avisynth 2.58 and x264 encoder 0.132.2310
- Packer
- Rendering
- Games
- Assassin's Creed III* V. 1.0.2 (DirectX 11 - Savegame)
- Crysis 3* (DirectX 11 - savegame)
- Serious Sam 3* V. 1.5.1466 (DirectX 9 - Savegame)
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim* V. 1.8.151.0.7 (DirectX 9 - Savegame)
- tomb raider* V. 743.0 (DirectX 11 - Savegame)
- Encryption
- 7-Zip
- TrueCrypt 7.1a
- WinZip
- SiSoft Sandra 2013.05.19.44
Overall, we tried to focus strongly on real applications with the benchmarks and to distance ourselves from synthetic tests. Whenever possible, we also used the 64-bit version.
A special remark should be made about LAME: By default, LAME is created with an Intel C ++ compiler. In the past, this has repeatedly caused irritation, which is why we also use a version in our new benchmark course that we created ourselves with the help of Visual Studio 2010 from Microsoft. In terms of performance, however, it does no difference.
Other tools
- CPU-Z
- CPU-Z Latency Tool
- CoreTemp
- Core2MaxPerf
- Fraps
Test methodology
Apart from the remarks already made on this and on the previous page regarding our test philosophy, we want to briefly summarize the essential points again. Unless otherwise stated in the direct test description, the following points always apply:
- All available energy saving mechanisms are activated.
- If the CPU has a turbo mode, this is activated.
- If the CPU supports hyperthreading / core multithreading (CMT), this is activated.
- If not mentioned otherwise, always comes MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning for use.
Technology
The new FX-8320E
In the technical sector there is of course nothing new to report today. The technical implementation is basically the same as it was when the Bulldozer in late 2011 by AMD, of course including the advantages of the current Piledriver cores.
AMD's current innovations - shown with the FX-8370E, as now also with the FX-8320E - are more of a “cosmetic” nature. The manufacturer simply reacts to the allegations that the AMD CPUs in the middle class segment are too power hungry and thus tries to present a more attractive TDP class. The two new E-models are therefore in the 95-watt TDP range and no longer in the 125-watt class, like the 8370 and 8320.
In addition, the FX-8000 series remains with models with four modules, whereby each of the modules can handle two threads and AMD therefore speaks of eight CPU cores.
Tabular comparison
FX-8150 | FX-8320 | FX 8320E | FX-8350 | FX8370 | FX8370E | |
Codename | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera |
Stepping | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 |
Production | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm |
Modules / cores | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
Clock / turbo | 3,6 / 4,2 GHz | 3,5 / 4,0 GHz | 3,2 / 4,0 GHz | 4,0 / 4,2 GHz | 4,0 / 4,3 GHz | 3,3 / 4,3 GHz |
L2 cache | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB |
L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB |
TDP | 125 watts, | 125 watts, | 95 watts, | 125 watts, | 125 watts, | 95 watts, |
Storage support | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 |
Multiplier free | ja | ja | ja | ja | ja | ja |
Befehlssätz to | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI |
Street price | ~ 190 euros | ~ 130 euros | ~ 140 euros | ~ 150 euros | ~ 190 euros | ~ 170 euros |
In the middle class, the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are practically yesterday's news, but both are still available in stores. The actual offers are represented today by the models FX-8320 and FX-8370 and their E versions.
The nomenclatures are again not always conclusive, because an FX-8320 (E) offers less clock rate than, for example, an FX-8150 and should theoretically not have a higher number. With the FX-8370 (E) you can at least outperform an FX-8350 in terms of turbo clock.
TDP and price as weapons
Over the past few years, since the introduction of the FX-8000 models, it seems to have become clear that you can no longer win a flower pot with high GHz clock speeds alone. Especially if the high clock rates in your own architecture are clearly inferior to the lower clock rates of the competition. And so the new motto is quite obvious: less is more!
And in fact, AMD is currently losing less with the E variants than it is winning. The lower clock rates are not clearly noticeable in the performance, because the turbo clock often bridges here. At the same time, however, you can now name the lower TDP class of 95 watts.
We do not know how much AMD still has to select a good three years after the introduction of the FX-8000 processors in order to receive E and non-E models. But the production should really be mature enough by now that enough high-quality models can be captured, which can be operated with lower voltages in order to be sold as e-models. In this area - with four modules - the 65-watt class remains simply utopian.
Practice
overclocking
Despite the goal of being able to achieve a lower TDP, AMD also offers this FX processor without a multiplier blockade, and of course the end customer is free - at their own risk - to tease out the maximum performance from the CPU. This is also relatively easy using the free multiplier. However, you have to struggle with a few restrictions.
If you play on the CPU's multiplier, the processor's idle rate is no longer lowered as much as it would without manual intervention. This is of course counterproductive when it comes to energy efficiency. When it comes to bare clock rates and performance at the lowest possible price, deactivating the power-saving mechanisms and increasing the voltage in overclocking can even have an effect on an FX-8000 model. After that you don't have any savings in terms of power consumption, but you can get the maximum performance from the CPU squeeze out.
In our test, however, we do not want to deal with the intricacies of overclocking FX processors, so that we do not resort to means such as water cooling or additional voltage increases. Instead, we use our usual air cooling and just turn the clock up above the multiplier.
With the increase in clock speed, the power consumption also increases and reaches a value of over 196 watts. Compared to the previously measured 150 watts, this is a significant increase. The increase in clock speed also ensures that values were around 20 watts higher in idle mode.
Performance index [OC]
Games [dGPU]
Performance index | |
Games
|
|
FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
percent | |
Show / hide benchmark overview | |
The increased performance is quite impressive, because the average across all benchmarks is around seven percent. Here everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to accept the declared disadvantages.
But the means of the benchmarks is of course not the panacea for everyone. As our breakdown shows, the differences lie in the details and so the overclocking measure can hardly bear fruit in one case, but it may increase by up to 18 percent in another. This means of our tool makes it easier to judge personally where one applies one's own standards - including all possible negative consequences.
Direct comparison
Choice of products
AMD FX-8320E | FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz | |
Assassins Creed III 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
58,1 | 60,2 (+3,8%) |
Assassins Creed III 1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
40,6 | 43,5 (+7,3%) |
Crysis 3 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
93,3 | 98,7 (+5,7%) |
Crysis 3 1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF] |
66,3 | 71,1 (+7,2%) |
Serious Sam 3 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
53,1 | 56,6 (+6,5%) |
Serious Sam 3 1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
43,8 | 46,8 (+6,8%) |
TES V: Skyrim 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
55,5 | 60,2 (+8,6%) |
TES V: Skyrim 1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
40,4 | 44,3 (+9,5%) |
tomb raider 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
69,5 | 74,0 (+6,6%) |
tomb raider 1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF] |
40,6 | 43,4 (+7,1%) |
Euler3D benchmark Score [points (higher values are better)] |
3,7 | 4,3 (+16,7%) |
Euler3D benchmark Time [seconds (smaller values are better)] |
54,2 | 46,5 (-14,3%) |
PCMark05 CPU suite [points [more is better]] |
9 494,0 | 9 (+4,7%) |
PCMark05 Memory suite [points [more is better]] |
7 294,0 | 7 (-0,1%) |
PCMark 7 Computation Suite [points [more is better]] |
6 263,0 | 6 (+2,7%) |
GIMP Image processing of a 70 MPixel image [seconds [less is better]] |
38,0 | 37,0 (+2,7%) |
IrfanView Image processing [seconds [less is better]] |
19,3 | 18,4 (+4,9%) |
ITunes Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
70,8 | 70,3 (+0,6%) |
Blades Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio) [seconds [less is better]] |
81,4 | 80,7 (+0,8%) |
Nero AAC encoder Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
63,6 | 61,1 (+4,0%) |
OggEnc Wave to OggVorbis conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
63,6 | 61,7 (+3,1%) |
x264 encoder Time [seconds [less is better]] |
46,8 | 40,0 (+16,8%) |
x264 encoder Pass 1 [frames per second [more is better]] |
137,2 | 127,2 (+7,9%) |
x264 encoder Pass 2 [frames per second [more is better]] |
40,6 | 37,8 (+7,5%) |
Handbrake x264 Preset: iPod 320 × 176 [seconds [less is better]] |
25,8 | 23,3 (+10,6%) |
Handbrake x264 Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 [seconds [less is better]] |
221,8 | 188,6 (+17,6%) |
Blender FlyingSquirrel [seconds [less is better]] |
38,1 | 35,9 (+5,8%) |
POV Ray 3.7 Rendering [seconds [less is better]] |
215,8 | 183,0 (+17,9%) |
Cinebench CPU - all cores [points [more is better]] |
5,54 | 6,57 (+18,6%) |
7 Zip without AES [seconds [less is better]] |
70,8 | 68,0 (+4,2%) |
7 Zip with AES [seconds [less is better]] |
71,0 | 68,0 (+4,5%) |
WinRAR highest compression rate [seconds [less is better]] |
25,5 | - |
WinZip Encryption: None [seconds [less is better]] |
62,8 | 61,1 (+2,8%) |
WinZip Encryption: AES 256 bit [seconds [less is better]] |
62,8 | 61,1 (+2,7%) |
TrueCrypt [AES] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
3 000,0 | 3 (+16,7%) |
TrueCrypt [Serpent] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
349,0 | 382,0 (+9,5%) |
TrueCrypt [Twofish] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
566,0 | 672,0 (+18,7%) |
Practice: power consumption
In the following, we determine the average consumption of the entire system without a monitor. A standard energy cost meter is used here, in our case an Energy Check 300. Over a period of 20 minutes, we record the course and, of course, state the average value in watts. We use Core2MaxPerf for all processors as a full load scenario.
It remains clear that this measurement of the entire system cannot, of course, be as accurate as previous measurements on our part, in which we only reduced the CPU load and power consumption with special mainboard modifications. Unfortunately, everything flows into such measurements. Sudden spikes caused by hard disk access, programs starting in the background that request higher CPU loads, or similar scenarios. One can only try at this point to exclude all evildoers. But it can never succeed in the end, and so the following diagrams are only indicative - always based on our selected test system!
input | |
Idle |
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Watt |
Based on our explanations, two circumstances clearly stand out in idle mode. On the one hand, the FX-8000 models are basically on the same level, but unfortunately none of the candidates can really score compared to the ranking. The next smaller level are the AMD APUs, which also work in roughly the same segment. Another fundamental limitation of such a consideration of the overall system is the selected components, such as the mainboard or the power supply.
However, the clear lead of Intel offshoots, which operate on different motherboards to AMD, but are also equipped with identical components such as power supply unit, hard drive and so on, cannot be disputed.
And so the Intel processors are clearly ahead in this comparison.
input | |
Last |
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Watt |
A look at the load scenario clearly shows that AMD is right to separate the 125-watt TDP class from the 95-watt class. The measurements of the total system power consumption show a difference in the range of 30 watts, in some cases even more. It's nice to see, but unfortunately it's still a bit too high. After all, over 30 watts separate this mid-range AMD CPU from Intel's Socket 1150 top model i7-4790K.
In principle, this only gives a rough indication, because at this point the dependency of the load tool is also decisive. This tendency is evident in the tool we have chosen. Intel's top model i7-4790K operates with a TDP of 88 watts, AMD's mid-range model operates with a TDP of 95 watts - roughly the same region. How much leeway the two different CPU models have for maximum TDP under typical load scenarios is unfortunately unclear. It seems that the AMD models are approaching their limits faster here.
And so in the end there is only one look at the benchmarks, which have to clarify where exactly which CPU is.
Benchmarks: Synthetic
PCMark 05
Information on the benchmark
Information on the benchmarkAs the name suggests, PCMark 05 dates from 2005 and is therefore already several years under its belt. Nevertheless, the benchmark suite from the Finnish company Futuremark is still very well suited to classifying the computing power of processors and their memory performance. We only use the CPU and memory suite, so that conclusions can only be drawn for these components. The CPU suite is based on eight different tests from the fields of packing / unpacking, encryption, and audio and video processing, and thus allows an overview of the everyday performance of the processors. The CPU suite benefits equally from high clock frequencies and from multiple cores. In the memory suite that is also used, however, factors such as cache rate, cache size and memory bandwidth play a role, since the tests essentially consist of reading, copying and writing data of different sizes to the memory.
PCMark05 | |
CPU suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
PCMark05 | |
Memory suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
PCMark 7
Information on the benchmark
Information on the benchmarkPCMark 7 was only launched this year and represents the latest system benchmark from Futuremark. We only use the Computation Suite to draw conclusions about the computing power of the processors tested. The suite comprises three different tests from the fields of video transcoding and image processing. It allows you to see the everyday performance of the processors. In addition to a high clock rate, the tests benefit from multiple cores.
PCMark 7 | |
Computation suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
Euler3d benchmark
Essentially, it is a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) application that simulates the flow around and in a certain object. For such applications it is quite common that large caches and many CPU cores can result in a significant increase in performance. More information on the Euler3d benchmark Is there ... here.
PCMark 7 | |
Computation suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
Euler3D benchmark | |
Time |
|
AMD A8-6500T | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Seconds (smaller values are better) |
Benchmarks: Audio Editing
Now we come to the “correct” everyday applications. We want to start with music editing software. All tests are based on a wave file of around 710 MB, which we convert to MP3 files with the help of iTunes, LAME and the Nero AAC encoder. A conversion to the Ogg Vorbis format is also used. All programs are strictly single-threaded, so they only make use of one core.
iTunes
Information on the benchmark
iTunes is a multimedia program from Apple that allows you to play, convert, organize and buy all kinds of music. The first version of the very successful software came on the market in 2001. There is now the ninth revision. We are currently using this with version number 9.1.2.5. However, this version does not yet make use of multi-core processors either. The SSE units are used very often for this.
ITunes | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Nero AAC
Nero AAC encoder | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
LAME
ITunes | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
OggEnc
OggEnc | |
Wave to OggVorbis conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: image editing
When it comes to image processing, we rely on the free programs GIMP and IrfanView. Both programs make very weak use of multiple cores, but are more likely to be classified as single-threaded.
GIMP
After we recently examined AMD's new FX-8370E processor, today we take a look at the FX-8320E, which is located in the middle of the AMD desktop processors. 8 cores, each with a clock rate of 3,2 GHz, turbo mode, but also a lower TDP of 95 watts are the key data. However, this processor is available for prices starting at 140 euros. Our test explains how the FX-8320E performs in practice.
Intro
AMD's motto: You can build high-performance PCs at low prices, and advertise primarily with the eight processor cores, from which very well parallelized software can benefit massively. In addition, the 8320E has a base clock of 3,2 GHz and a turbo clock of around 4 GHz. For comparison: the non-E version clocks at 3,5 GHz in the basic clock and also 4 GHz in turbo mode.
On the following pages we clarify where the FX-8320E is to be classified, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the relatively inexpensive CPU.
Test environment
Hardware: Intel systems
Intel socket LGA-1150
- Intel Core i7-4790K:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i7-4770:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-4670K:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-4670:
Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The new Haswell processors are operated on the MSI mainboard Z87-G43. We imported the latest beta BIOS V1.2B1 and activated all energy-saving mechanisms in the BIOS. The memory modules used come from G.Skill. It is a 4 x 4 GByte kit of the Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 with the latencies CL9-9-9-24.
Intel socket LGA-1155
- Core i7 3770K:
IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i5-3570K:
IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Intel Core i7-2700K:
Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i7 2600K:
Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i5 2500K:
SB architecture, D2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1333
For Intel's “Sandy Bridge” and “Ivy Bridge” processors for the LGA-1155 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 are used, operated on DDR3-1333. The memories are operated with the CL9-9-9-24 2T latencies. That comes as a mainboard MSI Z77A-GD65* used with BIOS version 7751vP0. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
Intel socket LGA-2011 and LGA-2011-3
- Core i7-5960X
R2 stepping, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133 - Core i7-4960X
S1 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - Core i7-3960X
C2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
For the processors of the LGA-2011 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 and an ASUS Rampage IV Gene with BIOS 4901 are used. The socket LGA-2011-3 is measured with 4 x 4 GByte Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666, operated with DDR4-2133 and timings of 15-15-15-36. An MSI X99S Gaming 7 with BIOS V17.4 is used as the mainboard.
Hardware: AMD systems
AMD Socket FM2 +
- A10-7850K
Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A8-7600
Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6800K
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 4,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6700
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - A10-6500T
Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 2,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The processors for FM2 and FM2 + were measured on the MSI A85XA-G65. The Kaveri models and the A10-6800K also on the MSI A88XM-E45.
AMD Socket AM3 +
- FX-8370E:
Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - FX-8350:
Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 - FX-8150:
Bulldozer architecture, B2 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
The same G.Skill modules are used for AMD's Bulldozer processors for the AM3 + socket as on the Intel systems. That comes as a mainboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula* (990FX chipset) used with BIOS 1703. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
Due to the lack of support for the new processor from our test board ASUS Crosshair V Formula, we had to change the board. The measurement results for the AM3 + socket were therefore completely created on the new ASUS Sabertooth 990FX.
AMD Socket FM2
- A10-5800K
- Trinity architecture, A1 stepping, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, 4 x DDR3-1600
The G.Skill DDR3 memory mentioned above works here as well. The Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 with BIOS F4 is used as the mainboard. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.
More hardware
Graphic card:
- MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning
- AMD Radeon HD 3450 (DDR3):
only for measurements of power consumption
Memory:
- 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600
SPD operation: DDR3-1600, 9-9-9-24 at 1,5 volts
Power adapter:
- be quiet! DARK POWER 550W R10
Hard disk:
- Seagate ST2000VX000
Cooler:
- Scythe Katana III
- Noctua NH-U12S
Measurement:
- Tenma 72-6185 clamp ammeter
- Voltcraft Energy Check 3000
- Tenma infrared thermometer 72-820
- Metex multimeter M-3640D
- Profitec KD 302 energy cost meter
Software and benchmarks
Operating system and driver
- Windows Ultimate 7 (64-bit) including all updates up to May 2013
- AMD / ATI Catalyst 13.4 WHQL
- Windows 7 supplied drivers for the chipset and network card
CPU benchmarks
- Synthetic benchmarks
- PCMark05 v120_1901
- PCMark 7 v1.4.0
- Euler 3D
- Audio editing
- iTunes 11.0.2
- LAM 3.98.4 (compiled with Visual Studio 2008)
- Nero AAC Encoder 1.5.1
- OggEnc 2.87
- image editing
- video editing
- HandBrake 0.9.9 RC1 64bit
- Avisynth 2.58 and x264 encoder 0.132.2310
- Packer
- Rendering
- Games
- Assassin's Creed III* V. 1.0.2 (DirectX 11 - Savegame)
- Crysis 3* (DirectX 11 - savegame)
- Serious Sam 3* V. 1.5.1466 (DirectX 9 - Savegame)
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim* V. 1.8.151.0.7 (DirectX 9 - Savegame)
- tomb raider* V. 743.0 (DirectX 11 - Savegame)
- Encryption
- 7-Zip
- TrueCrypt 7.1a
- WinZip
- SiSoft Sandra 2013.05.19.44
Overall, we tried to focus strongly on real applications with the benchmarks and to distance ourselves from synthetic tests. Whenever possible, we also used the 64-bit version.
A special remark should be made about LAME: By default, LAME is created with an Intel C ++ compiler. In the past, this has repeatedly caused irritation, which is why we also use a version in our new benchmark course that we created ourselves with the help of Visual Studio 2010 from Microsoft. In terms of performance, however, it does no difference.
Other tools
- CPU-Z
- CPU-Z Latency Tool
- CoreTemp
- Core2MaxPerf
- Fraps
Test methodology
Apart from the remarks already made on this and on the previous page regarding our test philosophy, we want to briefly summarize the essential points again. Unless otherwise stated in the direct test description, the following points always apply:
- All available energy saving mechanisms are activated.
- If the CPU has a turbo mode, this is activated.
- If the CPU supports hyperthreading / core multithreading (CMT), this is activated.
- If not mentioned otherwise, always comes MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning for use.
Technology
The new FX-8320E
In the technical sector there is of course nothing new to report today. The technical implementation is basically the same as it was when the Bulldozer in late 2011 by AMD, of course including the advantages of the current Piledriver cores.
AMD's current innovations - shown with the FX-8370E, as now also with the FX-8320E - are more of a “cosmetic” nature. The manufacturer simply reacts to the allegations that the AMD CPUs in the middle class segment are too power hungry and thus tries to present a more attractive TDP class. The two new E-models are therefore in the 95-watt TDP range and no longer in the 125-watt class, like the 8370 and 8320.
The implementation takes place in simple steps, namely in the form of clock and voltage lowering - presumably also the DIE selection. The FX-8320E only has a base clock of 3,2 instead of 3,5 GHz. In turbo mode, however, it still clocks up 4 GHz, just like the previous FX-8320.
In addition, the FX-8000 series remains with models with four modules, whereby each of the modules can handle two threads and AMD therefore speaks of eight CPU cores.
Tabular comparison
FX-8150 | FX-8320 | FX 8320E | FX-8350 | FX8370 | FX8370E | |
Codename | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera | Vishera |
Stepping | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 | C0 |
Production | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm |
Modules / cores | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
Clock / turbo | 3,6 / 4,2 GHz | 3,5 / 4,0 GHz | 3,2 / 4,0 GHz | 4,0 / 4,2 GHz | 4,0 / 4,3 GHz | 3,3 / 4,3 GHz |
L2 cache | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB | 4 x 2 MB |
L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB |
TDP | 125 watts, | 125 watts, | 95 watts, | 125 watts, | 125 watts, | 95 watts, |
Storage support | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 | DDR3-1866 |
Multiplier free | ja | ja | ja | ja | ja | ja |
Befehlssätz to | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI | SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI |
Street price | ~ 190 euros | ~ 130 euros | ~ 140 euros | ~ 150 euros | ~ 190 euros | ~ 170 euros |
In the middle class, the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are practically yesterday's news, but both are still available in stores. The actual offers are represented today by the models FX-8320 and FX-8370 and their E versions.
The nomenclatures are again not always conclusive, because an FX-8320 (E) offers less clock rate than, for example, an FX-8150 and should theoretically not have a higher number. With the FX-8370 (E) you can at least outperform an FX-8350 in terms of turbo clock.
TDP and price as weapons
Over the past few years, since the introduction of the FX-8000 models, it seems to have become clear that you can no longer win a flower pot with high GHz clock speeds alone. Especially if the high clock rates in your own architecture are clearly inferior to the lower clock rates of the competition. And so the new motto is quite obvious: less is more!
And in fact, AMD is currently losing less with the E variants than it is winning. The lower clock rates are not clearly noticeable in the performance, because the turbo clock often bridges here. At the same time, however, you can now name the lower TDP class of 95 watts.
If you look at the market in the area of the FX-8000 series and the AM3 + socket, the FX-8320 (E) in German-speaking countries is probably the cheapest option to get started here. The current staggering also shows the low margins with which the manufacturer has to act here. Often individual models are simply separated by only 10 euros - outliers in our table can be explained by discontinued models in sales or fluctuating exchange rates.
We do not know how much AMD still has to select a good three years after the introduction of the FX-8000 processors in order to receive E and non-E models. But the production should really be mature enough by now that enough high-quality models can be captured, which can be operated with lower voltages in order to be sold as e-models. In this area - with four modules - the 65-watt class remains simply utopian.
Practice
overclocking
Despite the goal of being able to achieve a lower TDP, AMD also offers this FX processor without a multiplier blockade, and of course the end customer is free - at their own risk - to tease out the maximum performance from the CPU. This is also relatively easy using the free multiplier. However, you have to struggle with a few restrictions.
If you play on the CPU's multiplier, the processor's idle rate is no longer lowered as much as it would without manual intervention. This is of course counterproductive when it comes to energy efficiency. When it comes to bare clock rates and performance at the lowest possible price, deactivating the power-saving mechanisms and increasing the voltage in overclocking can even have an effect on an FX-8000 model. After that you don't have any savings in terms of power consumption, but you can get the maximum performance from the CPU squeeze out.
In our test, however, we do not want to deal with the intricacies of overclocking FX processors, so that we do not resort to means such as water cooling or additional voltage increases. Instead, we use our usual air cooling and just turn the clock up above the multiplier.
We were able to increase the clock rate by a further 600 MHz at the base clock rate before the chip lost its stability. This shows that there is definitely potential in the FX-8320E, but again it is not really a surprise compared to the regular FX-8320.
With the increase in clock speed, the power consumption also increases and reaches a value of over 196 watts. Compared to the previously measured 150 watts, this is a significant increase. The increase in clock speed also ensures that values were around 20 watts higher in idle mode.
Performance index [OC]
Games [dGPU]
Performance index | |
Games
|
|
FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
percent | |
Show / hide benchmark overview | |
The increased performance is quite impressive, because the average across all benchmarks is around seven percent. Here everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to accept the declared disadvantages.
But the means of the benchmarks is of course not the panacea for everyone. As our breakdown shows, the differences lie in the details and so the overclocking measure can hardly bear fruit in one case, but it may increase by up to 18 percent in another. This means of our tool makes it easier to judge personally where one applies one's own standards - including all possible negative consequences.
Direct comparison
Choice of products
AMD FX-8320E | FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz | |
Assassins Creed III 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
58,1 | 60,2 (+3,8%) |
Assassins Creed III 1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
40,6 | 43,5 (+7,3%) |
Crysis 3 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
93,3 | 98,7 (+5,7%) |
Crysis 3 1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF] |
66,3 | 71,1 (+7,2%) |
Serious Sam 3 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
53,1 | 56,6 (+6,5%) |
Serious Sam 3 1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
43,8 | 46,8 (+6,8%) |
TES V: Skyrim 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
55,5 | 60,2 (+8,6%) |
TES V: Skyrim 1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
40,4 | 44,3 (+9,5%) |
tomb raider 1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
69,5 | 74,0 (+6,6%) |
tomb raider 1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF] |
40,6 | 43,4 (+7,1%) |
Euler3D benchmark Score [points (higher values are better)] |
3,7 | 4,3 (+16,7%) |
Euler3D benchmark Time [seconds (smaller values are better)] |
54,2 | 46,5 (-14,3%) |
PCMark05 CPU suite [points [more is better]] |
9 494,0 | 9 (+4,7%) |
PCMark05 Memory suite [points [more is better]] |
7 294,0 | 7 (-0,1%) |
PCMark 7 Computation Suite [points [more is better]] |
6 263,0 | 6 (+2,7%) |
GIMP Image processing of a 70 MPixel image [seconds [less is better]] |
38,0 | 37,0 (+2,7%) |
IrfanView Image processing [seconds [less is better]] |
19,3 | 18,4 (+4,9%) |
ITunes Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
70,8 | 70,3 (+0,6%) |
Blades Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio) [seconds [less is better]] |
81,4 | 80,7 (+0,8%) |
Nero AAC encoder Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
63,6 | 61,1 (+4,0%) |
OggEnc Wave to OggVorbis conversion [seconds [less is better]] |
63,6 | 61,7 (+3,1%) |
x264 encoder Time [seconds [less is better]] |
46,8 | 40,0 (+16,8%) |
x264 encoder Pass 1 [frames per second [more is better]] |
137,2 | 127,2 (+7,9%) |
x264 encoder Pass 2 [frames per second [more is better]] |
40,6 | 37,8 (+7,5%) |
Handbrake x264 Preset: iPod 320 × 176 [seconds [less is better]] |
25,8 | 23,3 (+10,6%) |
Handbrake x264 Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 [seconds [less is better]] |
221,8 | 188,6 (+17,6%) |
Blender FlyingSquirrel [seconds [less is better]] |
38,1 | 35,9 (+5,8%) |
POV Ray 3.7 Rendering [seconds [less is better]] |
215,8 | 183,0 (+17,9%) |
Cinebench CPU - all cores [points [more is better]] |
5,54 | 6,57 (+18,6%) |
7 Zip without AES [seconds [less is better]] |
70,8 | 68,0 (+4,2%) |
7 Zip with AES [seconds [less is better]] |
71,0 | 68,0 (+4,5%) |
WinRAR highest compression rate [seconds [less is better]] |
25,5 | - |
WinZip Encryption: None [seconds [less is better]] |
62,8 | 61,1 (+2,8%) |
WinZip Encryption: AES 256 bit [seconds [less is better]] |
62,8 | 61,1 (+2,7%) |
TrueCrypt [AES] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
3 000,0 | 3 (+16,7%) |
TrueCrypt [Serpent] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
349,0 | 382,0 (+9,5%) |
TrueCrypt [Twofish] [MByte / s [more is better]] |
566,0 | 672,0 (+18,7%) |
Practice: power consumption
In the following, we determine the average consumption of the entire system without a monitor. A standard energy cost meter is used here, in our case an Energy Check 300. Over a period of 20 minutes, we record the course and, of course, state the average value in watts. We use Core2MaxPerf for all processors as a full load scenario.
It remains clear that this measurement of the entire system cannot, of course, be as accurate as previous measurements on our part, in which we only reduced the CPU load and power consumption with special mainboard modifications. Unfortunately, everything flows into such measurements. Sudden spikes caused by hard disk access, programs starting in the background that request higher CPU loads, or similar scenarios. One can only try at this point to exclude all evildoers. But it can never succeed in the end, and so the following diagrams are only indicative - always based on our selected test system!
input | |
Idle |
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Watt |
Based on our explanations, two circumstances clearly stand out in idle mode. On the one hand, the FX-8000 models are basically on the same level, but unfortunately none of the candidates can really score compared to the ranking. The next smaller level are the AMD APUs, which also work in roughly the same segment. Another fundamental limitation of such a consideration of the overall system is the selected components, such as the mainboard or the power supply.
However, the clear lead of Intel offshoots, which operate on different motherboards to AMD, but are also equipped with identical components such as power supply unit, hard drive and so on, cannot be disputed.
And so the Intel processors are clearly ahead in this comparison.
input | |
Last |
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Watt |
A look at the load scenario clearly shows that AMD is right to separate the 125-watt TDP class from the 95-watt class. The measurements of the total system power consumption show a difference in the range of 30 watts, in some cases even more. It's nice to see, but unfortunately it's still a bit too high. After all, over 30 watts separate this mid-range AMD CPU from Intel's Socket 1150 top model i7-4790K.
In principle, this only gives a rough indication, because at this point the dependency of the load tool is also decisive. This tendency is evident in the tool we have chosen. Intel's top model i7-4790K operates with a TDP of 88 watts, AMD's mid-range model operates with a TDP of 95 watts - roughly the same region. How much leeway the two different CPU models have for maximum TDP under typical load scenarios is unfortunately unclear. It seems that the AMD models are approaching their limits faster here.
And so in the end there is only one look at the benchmarks, which have to clarify where exactly which CPU is.
Benchmarks: Synthetic
PCMark 05
Information on the benchmark
Information on the benchmarkAs the name suggests, PCMark 05 dates from 2005 and is therefore already several years under its belt. Nevertheless, the benchmark suite from the Finnish company Futuremark is still very well suited to classifying the computing power of processors and their memory performance. We only use the CPU and memory suite, so that conclusions can only be drawn for these components. The CPU suite is based on eight different tests from the fields of packing / unpacking, encryption, and audio and video processing, and thus allows an overview of the everyday performance of the processors. The CPU suite benefits equally from high clock frequencies and from multiple cores. In the memory suite that is also used, however, factors such as cache rate, cache size and memory bandwidth play a role, since the tests essentially consist of reading, copying and writing data of different sizes to the memory.
PCMark05 | |
CPU suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
PCMark05 | |
Memory suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
PCMark 7
Information on the benchmark
Information on the benchmarkPCMark 7 was only launched this year and represents the latest system benchmark from Futuremark. We only use the Computation Suite to draw conclusions about the computing power of the processors tested. The suite comprises three different tests from the fields of video transcoding and image processing. It allows you to see the everyday performance of the processors. In addition to a high clock rate, the tests benefit from multiple cores.
PCMark 7 | |
Computation suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
Euler3d benchmark
Essentially, it is a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) application that simulates the flow around and in a certain object. For such applications it is quite common that large caches and many CPU cores can result in a significant increase in performance. More information on the Euler3d benchmark Is there ... here.
PCMark 7 | |
Computation suite |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
Euler3D benchmark | |
Time |
|
AMD A8-6500T | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Seconds (smaller values are better) |
Benchmarks: Audio Editing
Now we come to the “correct” everyday applications. We want to start with music editing software. All tests are based on a wave file of around 710 MB, which we convert to MP3 files with the help of iTunes, LAME and the Nero AAC encoder. A conversion to the Ogg Vorbis format is also used. All programs are strictly single-threaded, so they only make use of one core.
iTunes
Information on the benchmark
iTunes is a multimedia program from Apple that allows you to play, convert, organize and buy all kinds of music. The first version of the very successful software came on the market in 2001. There is now the ninth revision. We are currently using this with version number 9.1.2.5. However, this version does not yet make use of multi-core processors either. The SSE units are used very often for this.
ITunes | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Nero AAC
Nero AAC encoder | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
LAME
ITunes | |
Wave to MP3 conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
OggEnc
OggEnc | |
Wave to OggVorbis conversion |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: image editing
When it comes to image processing, we rely on the free programs GIMP and IrfanView. Both programs make very weak use of multiple cores, but are more likely to be classified as single-threaded.
GIMP
GIMP | |
Image processing of a 70 MPixel image |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
IrfanView
IrfanView | |
image editing |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: Video Editing
When it comes to video editing, Handbrake and MainConcept are used, which use different codecs with different quality settings. The source file is always a 380 MB HD video. While software that has not made use of multiple cores has primarily been used up to now, MainConcept and Handbrake are two prime examples of parallelization. Even six cores are optimally used.
Handbrake x264
Handbrake x264 | |
Preset: iPod 320 × 176 |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Handbrake x264 | |
Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 |
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Avisynth & x264 encoder
GIMP | |
Image processing of a 70 MPixel image |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
IrfanView
IrfanView | |
image editing |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: Video Editing
When it comes to video editing, Handbrake and MainConcept are used, which use different codecs with different quality settings. The source file is always a 380 MB HD video. While software that has not made use of multiple cores has primarily been used up to now, MainConcept and Handbrake are two prime examples of parallelization. Even six cores are optimally used.
Handbrake x264
Handbrake x264 | |
Preset: iPod 320 × 176 |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Handbrake x264 | |
Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 |
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Avisynth & x264 encoder
x264 encoder | |
Time |
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
x264 encoder | |
passport 1 |
|
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
x264 encoder | |
passport 2 |
|
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Benchmarks: Packers
We use 7-Zip, WinRAR and WinZip as packing programs, whereby WinZip and 7-Zip are used both once with AES encryption and once without this feature. In both cases, the highest compression level (Ultra) is selected.
7-Zip
7 Zip | |
without AES |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
WinRAR
WinRAR | |
highest compression rate |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
WinZip
WinZip | |
Encryption: none |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: rendering
In the rendering segment we trust Blender, Cinebench version 11.5 and POV-Ray. All three programs make massive use of multi-core processors, so each additional core saves real time.
Blender
Blender | |
FlyingSquirrel |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
POV Ray
POV Ray 3.7 | |
Rendering |
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Cinebench 11.5
Cinebench | |
CPU - all cores |
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Points [more is better] |
Benchmarks: encryption
Truecrypt
TrueCrypt | |
|
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
MByte / s [more is better] |
TrueCrypt | |
|
|
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
MByte / s [more is better] |
TrueCrypt | |
|
|
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
MByte / s [more is better] |
7-Zip: AES
7 Zip | |
with AES |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Seconds [less is better] |
WinZip: AES
WinZip | |
Encryption: AES 256 bit |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Seconds [less is better] |
Benchmarks: Games [dGPU]
We use two resolutions below. We show benchmarks with 1366 x 768 pixels on the one hand, and benchmarks with a resolution of 1680 x 1050 on the other. We show medium detail levels for the latter resolution; for the first resolution we manually lowered the detail levels from medium a little bit come close to “notebook quality” with an integrated GPU.
The scenes used are not identical to our usual graphics card benchmarks. At this point, of course, we tried to choose game sequences that had a CPU rather than a GPU limit.
Assassin's Creed III
Game | Assassin's Creed III |
Developer | Ubisoft |
Publisher | Ubisoft |
publication | November 2012 |
Genre | Action adventure |
Age rating | 16 years |
Graphics engine | AnvilNext and Havok Physics |
DirectX path | DirectX 9, 11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Boston City - Sequence III Main Mission |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | see the following table |
Find on Amazon* |
In-game test scene
Quality settings | 1366 x 768 | 1680 x 1050 |
Environmental quality | Normal | Very high |
Texture quality | Normal | High |
Shadow quality | Normal | Very high |
Anti-aliasing | FXAA | FXAA |
Assassins Creed III | |
1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Assassins Creed III | |
1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Crysis 3
Game | Crysis 3 |
Developer | Crytek |
Publisher | Electronic Arts |
publication | 21 February 2013 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Graphics engine | CryENGINE 3 |
DirectX path | DirectX 9, 11 |
Age rating USK | 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Mission 4: Swamp |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | see the following table |
Order from Amazon* |
In-game test scene
Quality settings | 1366 x 768 | 1680 x 1050 |
System setting | Medium | High |
Texture resolution | Medium | High |
Anisotropic filter | 16x | 16x |
Anti-aliasing | 1 | FXAA |
Crysis 3 | |
1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Crysis 3 | |
1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Serious Sam 3
Game | Serious Sam 3 - SFOE |
Developer | Croteam |
Publisher | Devolver Digital |
publication | 23 April 2012 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Graphics engine | Serious Engine v3.5 |
DirectX path | DirectX 9 |
Age rating USK | 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | In the web of the spider |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | see the following table |
Order from Amazon* |
Quality settings | 1366 x 768 | 1680 x 1050 |
CPU speed | Medium | Incredibly |
GPU speed | Medium | Incredibly |
GPU memory | Medium | Incredibly |
Anti-aliasing | 1 | 1 |
SSAA | From | From |
Anisotropic filter | 16x | 16x |
Serious Sam 3 | |
1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Serious Sam 3 | |
1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
TES V: Skyrim
Game | The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim |
Developer | Bethesda Game Studios |
Publisher | Bethesda Softworks |
publication | (March 2012) |
Genre | role playing game |
Age rating | 16 years |
Graphics engine | Creation Engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Riften |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | See the table below |
Order from Amazon* |
Quality settings | 1366 x 768 | 1680 x 1050 |
Details | Medium | High |
High-res textures | From | From |
Anti-aliasing | 1 | 4x and FXAA |
Anisotropic filter | 16x | 16x |
TES V: Skyrim | |
1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
TES V: Skyrim | |
1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-3570K | |
Intel Core i7-2700K | |
Intel Core i7-2600K | |
Intel Core i5-2500K | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i5-2400 | |
Intel Core i3-3220 | |
Intel Core i5-2300 | |
Intel Core i3-2120 | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
AMD FX-8370E | |
AMD FX-8320E | |
AMD FX-8150 | |
Intel Celeron G1620 | |
AMD A10-6800K | |
AMD A10-7850K | |
AMD A10-6700 | |
AMD A10-7800 | |
AMD A8-7600 | |
AMD A8-6500T | |
Frames per Second [more is better] |
Tomb Raider (2013)
Game | tomb raider |
Developer | Crystal Dynamics & Eidos Montreal |
Publisher | Square Enix |
publication | March 5, 2013 |
Genre | Action-Adventure |
Graphics engine | Crystal engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9, 11 |
Age rating USK | 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Barrack town |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | see the following table |
HT4U test | Order from Amazon* |
Quality settings | 1366 x 768 | 1680 x 1050 |
Quality | Normal | Highest |
Hair quality | Normal | TressFX |
Shadow | Normal | Incredibly |
Tessellation | From | A |
Anti-aliasing | 1 | FXAA |
Anisotropic filter | 16x | 16x |
tomb raider | |
1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
Intel Core i7-3960X | |
Intel Core i7-4790K | |
Intel Core i7-4960X | |
Intel Core i7-4770K | |
Intel Core i7-3770K | |
Intel Core i5-4670K | |
Intel Core i7-5960X | |
AMD FX-8350 | |
Intel Core i5-3570K |