Raven Ridge: AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G in the test

In terms of processors, AMD can look back on a successful year 2017 and would like to go even further in 2018. "Ryzen 2000" is supposed to appear, but first the manufacturer is launching its new APUs with integrated Vega-11 graphics unit, which is supposed to bring new momentum to the mainstream. The prices start at around 100 US dollars, and there is then a new graphic, which also has sufficient CPU power. Our test clarifies the questions.

Intro

The code names should remain confusing for most users - Raven Ridge definitely stands for the ZEN architecture from AMD, as it was introduced with Ryzen, and not only relies on a new graphics unit based on the Vega graphics architecture from AMD, but also on the processor performance of Ryzen, as found in the CPUs presented in 2017. This means that AMD no longer has to fool around with its APUs and explain why they have a massively powerful graphics unit to offer, but poor CPU performance. So the new APUs should do everything right in 2018. And since Ryzen 2000 is also planned for this year, the new APUs for the desktop are starting with a new nomenclature and the first two models are called Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G.

The "2" stands for the Ryzen 2000 series, the "G" for integrated graphics unit. So far, the new APUs have already been on the market, but only intended for use in notebooks, and the new AMD models in this area are still relatively quiet. Only three notebook manufacturers have products with these APUs on offer. So it's time to cause a stir for the new product. And for Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G, which only want to place themselves in the entry-level segment in the desktop segment. This means that we encounter CPUs in the price range from 100 to 160 US dollars - the euro exchange rate should also be around this range.

The following pages explain what the new AMD APUs have to offer.

Test environment

Hardware: AMD systems

To test the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, AMD sent a test kit into the house. In addition to the processor, this included 16 GB of Corsair DDR4-3000 memory, an MSI-AM4 motherboard, water cooling and a CPU cooler from Noctua. The latter corresponds to our previously favored model of the manufacturer, but in revision 2. We have nevertheless opted for the usual NH-U12S for comparison.

Mainboards in the test

In the meantime, however, AMD has submitted additional hardware, including various motherboards with the X370 chipset from ASUS and Gigabyte. For the test of Ryzen 5, however, there were mainboards with a B350 chipset and the urgent note that the R5 CPUs must definitely be tested with the B350 mainboard, since the revised new BIOS versions on AGESA 350a only for the B1004 boards to provide.

To test the new Ryzen APUs, AMD had now got the good idea that they should be tested with mini-ITX boards, and made platforms from Gigabyte and MSI with B350 chipset available for this. What is good on paper and in the idea is difficult to implement for a practical test. Even if the benchmark results can be implemented practically 1: 1 on the platforms, things like the power consumption of the overall system are no longer comparable. That's why we did the balancing act in this case and cross-coordinated the benchmarks between Gigabyte B350, MSI X370 and ASUS Prime X370. Since the ASUS Prime X370 not only showed us the same performance as the other two platforms, but also the same power consumption, we decided to carry out the tests on this platform.

AMD Socket AM4

  • AMD Ryzen 5 2400G: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm + manufacturing, 4 cores / 8 threads, 3,9 GHz, DDR4-2993 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 3 2200G:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm + manufacturing, 4 cores / 4 threads, 3,7 GHz, DDR4-2993 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1800X: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 8 cores / 16 threads, 4,0 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 8 cores / 16 threads, 3,8 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 8 cores / 16 threads, 3,7 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1600X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 6 cores / 12 threads, 4,0 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1600:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 6 cores / 12 threads, 3,6 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1500X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Zen architecture, 14 nm production, 4 cores / 8 threads, 3,7 GHz, DDR4-2667 MHz

Memory under test

With the Ryzen 5 test kits, AMD also sent GeIL DDR4-3200 memory - single-ranked - and announced that DDR4-3200 clock speed could be achieved on almost all test samples, but only DDR4-2933 on some . In any case, it was recommended to test the Ryzen 5 processors on DDR4-2933 clock. We did not follow this advice at the time. AMD's official and clear statement about the memory controller in the processor is that a maximum of DDR4-2667 is supported, and that with a maximum of two memory modules that are single-ranked.

Now there is a change, because with the new Raven Ridge APUs, DDR4-2933 memory clock is officially supported for the first time. A suitable test kit from G.Skill was included with the review kit and was also used. It also bears the designation "AMD-compatible", which simply means that G.Skill has tested these memory modules on various mainboards with AMD Ryzen CPUs. As in the other test runs, the Cas-Latency is 14. The other Ryzen processors stay with a DDR4-2667 clock.

If you are interested in how Ryzen reacts with memory clock rates up to DDR4-3200, our first Ryzen article found it.

AMD Socket AM3 +

  • AMD FX-9590: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Bulldozer / Vishera architecture, 32 nm production, 4 modules / 8 threads, 5,0 GHz, DDR3-1866 MHz
  • AMD FX-8350: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Bulldozer / Vishera architecture, 32 nm production, 4 modules / 8 threads, 4,2 GHz, DDR3-1866 MHz

The MSI 970 Gaming is used as the motherboard, which was also recently used in the tests of AMD's E processors.

Hardware: Intel systems

Intel socket LGA-1151
Eighth generation Intel Core processors

  • Intel Core i7-8700K: Amazon / Caseking)
    Coffee Lake architecture, 14 nm production, 4,7 GHz, 6 cores / 12 threads, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR4-2666 memory
  • Intel Core i7-8700K: Amazon / Caseking)
    Coffee Lake architecture, 14 nm production, 4,0 GHz, 6 cores / 12 threads, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR4-2666 memory

With the eighth generation of Intel Core processors, the manufacturer has once again increased the memory clock. DDR4-2667 is now officially supported, which we also use in the corresponding test. Although it is also an LGA1151 socket compared to the sixth and seventh generation, Intel has made the processors artificially incompatible with previous chipsets and mainboards. Until now, the Z370 chipset was required to use these CPUs. Corresponding motherboards are currently still very expensive. Further chipsets and cheaper boards are only expected in the course of 2018. As a suitable motherboard platform for this, we have the MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon placed.

Sixth and seventh generation Intel Core processors

  • Intel Core i7-7700K:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Kaby Lake architecture, 14 nm + production, 4,2 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR4-2400 memory
  • Intel Core i5-7600K:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Kaby Lake architecture, 14 nm production, 4,2 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR4-2400 memory
  • Intel Core i5-7500:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Kaby Lake architecture, 14 nm production, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR4-2400 memory
  • Intel Core i3-7350K:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Kaby Lake architecture, 14 nm production, 4,2 GHz, 2 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR4-2400 memory
  • Intel Core i7-6700K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake architecture, 14 nm production, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR4-2133 memory
  • Core i5-6600K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake architecture, 14 nm production, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR4-2133 memory
  • Intel Core i5-6500:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake architecture, 14 nm production, 3,2 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR4-2133 memory
  • Intel Core i3-6100: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake architecture, 14 nm manufacturing, 3,7 GHz, 2 cores, DDR4-2133 memory
  • Intel Pentium G4400: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake architecture, 14 nm production, 3,3 GHz, 2 cores, DDR4-2133

While Skylake's memory controller only officially supports DDR4-2133 memory, Intel has relaxed the restrictions on Kaby Lake. The new CPU generation or its memory controller officially supports DDR4-2400. These are then also the corresponding clock rates with which we operate the memory. The CAS latency is 16 clock cycles each.

 

Manufacturer product page

Amazon / Caseking

There has been another innovation since the Kaby Lake processors. Intel has revised the Turbo, which should work much more aggressively from the Kaby Lake models. The i7-7700K, for example, has a core clock of a maximum of 4,5 GHz, from which single-threaded applications should benefit. Of course, this also applies to the later generations of core processors.

Intel socket LGA-1150
Fourth and fifth generation Intel Core processors

  • Intel Core i7-5775C: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Broadwell architecture, 14 nm production, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR3L-1600 memory
  • Intel Core i5-5675C: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Broadwell architecture, 14 nm production, 3,1 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR3L-1600 memory
  • Intel Core i7-4790K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Haswell architecture, 22 nm production, 4,0 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR3-1600 memory
  • Intel Core i7-4770K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Haswell architecture, 22 nm production, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, DDR3-1600 memory
  • Intel Core i5-4670K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Haswell architecture, 22 nm production, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, DDR3-1600 memory

Up to now we had used different motherboards (Z5 and Z4 chipset) and different memory for Broadwell (generation 87) and Haswell processors (generation 97), but we have now remedied this problem. From now on, both CPU generations from Intel will be measured on the MSI Z97 Gaming 5 as a test platform.

This should counteract the principle measurement deviations caused by the mainboard. At the same time, we are now relying on Kingston memory for all of these processors, and since DDR14 memory can only be used in the "L version" of the CPUs in 3 nm production, we use 2 x 8 GB here Kingston KVR13N9K2 / 16* DDR3-1600 CL9.

Intel socket LGA-1155
Second and third generation Intel Core processors

  • Core i7 3770K:
    Ivy Bridge architecture, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i5-3570K:
    Ivy Bridge architecture, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i5-3550:
    Ivy Bridge architecture, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i3-3220:
    Ivy Bridge architecture, 3,3 GHz, 2 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i7-2600K:
    Sandy Bridge architecture, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1333
  • Core i5 2500K:
    Sandy Bridge architecture, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1333
  • Intel Core i5-2300:
    Sandy Bridge architecture, 3,1 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1333
  • Intel Core i3-2120:
    Sandy Bridge architecture, 3,3 GHz, 2 cores, turbo mode active, 2 x DDR3-1333

The old, but still widespread processors of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge series both fit in motherboards with the LGA1155 socket. That comes as the motherboard MSI Z77A-GD65 with the BIOS version 7751vP0, which we had used for the tests from the start. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

There is a difference in the memory clock. While the core processors of the second generation only officially approved for DDR3-1333, Intel had already updated the memory controller of the Ivy Bridge models to DDR3-1600. In this case, too, we rely on the Kingston memory kit with two 8 GByte bars for the CL9 and thus achieve the best comparison with the other DDR3 platforms.

Intel socket LGA-2066 and the Core-X family

  • Intel Core i7-7740X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Kaby Lake X architecture, 14 nm production, 4,5 GHz, 4 cores / 8 threads, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4x DDR4-2666 memory
  • Intel Core i9-7900X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake-X architecture, 14 nm production, 4,3 GHz, 10 cores / 20 threads, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4x DDR4-2666 memory
  • Intel Core i7-7820X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Skylake-X architecture, 14 nm production, 4,3 GHz, 8 cores / 16 threads, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4x DDR4-2666 memory

The Core-X family is more or less Intel's answer to the AMD Ryzen processors launched last year. They use the new LGA2066 socket and are therefore no longer compatible with the previous high-end sockets 2011 and 2011 -3. On the memory side, DDR4-2666 is now officially supported here, while Intel's X299, the new high-end model, has to serve as the chipset. This comes as the basis for this ASUS ROG STRIX X299-XE GAMING for use. As usual with Intel's high-end platforms, the prices for mainboards, processors and quad-channel memory are very expensive, although Intel has since corrected the price structure downwards due to the existing competition.

Intel socket LGA-2011 and LGA-2011-3

  • Intel Core i7-6950X:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Broadwell-E (server) architecture, 14 nm production, 3,0 GHz, 10 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4x DDR4-2400 memory
  • Intel Core i7-6900K: (Amazon / Caseking)
    Broadwell-E (server) architecture, 14 nm production, 3,2 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2400 memory
  • Core i7-5960X (Amazon / Caseking)
    Haswell-E (server) architecture, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133 memory
  • Intel Core i7-5930K:(Amazon / Caseking)
    Haswell-E (server) architecture, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133 memory
  • Core i7-4960X
    Ivy Bridge E architecture, 3,6 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 memory
  • Intel Core i7-4820K:
    Ivy Bridge E architecture, 3,7 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600 memory
  • Core i7-3960X
    Sandy Bridge E (server) architecture, 3,3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i7-3820:
    Sandy Bridge E (server) architecture, 3,6 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

Fundamentally, a lot has happened in the LGA 2011 base over the years. While Intel initially relied on models from the six- and four-core CPU range for these server offshoots, the Core i7-5960X increased the number of CPU cores to eight cores for the first time and changed the memory base to DDR4 memory. With the later introduced models of the Broadwell-E series, the battleship of the series looks at ten CPU cores, and the memory clock has been increased from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-2400. The 2011 and 2011-3 sockets are a thing of the past for Intel with the introduction of the Core X processors and the LGA2066 socket.

For the processors of the LGA2011 socket we use the ASUS P9X79 mainboard with the latest BIOS, and the LGA2011-3 socket is supported by the MSI X99S Gaming 7 represented with the last BIOS update. The four 3 GBytes G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR4-3, which work with a CAS latency of 1600, are used as memory modules in the DDR9 platform. In the DDR4 board there are four times 4 GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666, of course operated with the respective permissible clock rates and timings of 15-15-15-36.

More hardware

Graphic card:

geforce_gtx_1080-150 × 150.jpg

More hardware

As part of the conversion of our test station, we also have a current graphics card in the form of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 changed. However, since we were confronted with massive clock changes under load, which falsified the measurement results, we manually reduced the boost clock of the graphics card to 1.493 MHz, since otherwise we would have seen excessive outliers in games. We made this reduction via the MSI Afterburner and increased the power limit to ensure that the clock rate was kept in the benchmarks.

The GTX 1080 from NVIDIA currently still represents the "all-round carefree graphics card" for games with full quality settings at WQHD resolution and sometimes also under Ultra HD resolution. Of course, it only fits to a limited extent in a broad view of processors which cheaper models are also used. This has practically no effect at all when looking at applications, but it has a stronger effect on games, since the weaker CPUs of the graphics card cannot help enough here.

Memory:

Power adapter:

For the power supply, we rely on an - apparently - small be-quiet! Model. However, you have to keep in mind that we are dealing with CPUs with a TDP of a maximum of 140 watts and graphics cards, which should also not consume more than 180 watts. At first glance, this shows a “lightness of being”. For enthusiast systems, which are also massively overclocked and on which power consumption limits are overridden by means of tool or BIOS interventions, such a power supply unit might then be too weak. In our case it fits.

However, this also results in the fact that the efficiency of the power supply units plays a role in the consideration of the total power consumption. When the load is good, the electricity supplier is more efficient than when the load is clearly lower, which leads to fluctuations in the recordings of the total power consumption.

Hard disk:

In the course of converting the current test course, we had to overcome a few hurdles. In addition, there was the fact that some of the test suites were also blatantly dependent on the loading times of the hard disk. While this could still be compensated for by running twice or three times in applications, we then absolutely reached the limits of inaccuracy in the games. The "non-exemplary game" Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, drove us almost insane during the evaluation until we noticed that the loads displayed were clearly dependent on the hard disk loading times. We were able to simply eliminate the fact by using an SSD - other problems we encountered too.

The Seagate hard drive thus serves more or less only as a data grave; the actual benchmarks and programs that we need for the test are stored on the Crucial MX300 SSD. Unfortunately, the point remains that SSDs belong in practically every modern PC system in 2017, but also the fact that they are relatively expensive in terms of their capacities compared to conventional hard drives. Gamers in particular have to keep looking at storage space problems here, especially because games have been taking up more and more storage space in recent years, primarily due to high-resolution video scenarios.

Cooler:

We use the Noctua NH-U12S as a cooler on all mainboards, and we use thermal paste in all cases Noctuas NT-H1. This is due, among other things, to the cooler's exemplary mounting options, the broad base compatibility (also for new sockets) and the fact that Noctua does not overdo things like the contact pressure.

And since we mainly rely on MSI for the motherboards, the same control technology is used for the pulsed 4-pin fan in general, so that we also get a feel for the prevailing background noise in case there should be an outlier in the tests.

From the small to the high-end CPUs, the Noctua tower cooler is easily able to keep them in check. By using the same cooler and thermal paste, we can draw a good comparison picture for the temperatures and thus also for the development of the power consumption.

Measurement:

Driver software under test

Operating system and driver

Test options and history

Multi-core platforms are commonplace today. When they came up and you looked at them, dug up their details and options and presented their benefits, you were practically stoned for them. Released in 2002, Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology was the first to show new ways in which the market is headed could develop. At this point, apparently nobody could follow, because two years later Intel was more or less at zero despite all its possibilities and influences in the software desktop scene. Only professional and mathematical applications were already suitable for several processor cores - server technology should establish itself in the private desktop segment.

Ported back to the present, we are currently seeing ten-core processors from Intel on the enthusiast market, such as the Core i7-6950X. But 14 years later things are still not looking so rosy in software support that it really needs that many computing cores. Some applications are still single-threaded, but most programs can now use two CPU cores. In the desktop end applications, most audio programs are designed to support two-core to a maximum of four-core processors and can therefore benefit from them. In image processing, professional applications also support more than four cores, while private applications often only have two to four cores. It looks a little better with video editing. Most of the most popular programs already support four or more threads.

Real profit from more than four CPU cores is currently only made by professional applications, and there mainly from the mathematical-scientific area, so that it seems rather uninteresting for desktop users to rely on more than four cores. This development is also the reason for the decline in the PC business for years, because the two-core processors that have been sold over the years, sometimes even with Hyper-Threading (i.e. four threads supported at the same time), are often powerful enough for all tasks of the daily desktop activity.

The software did not follow suit over the years with its requirements, and AMD with its new Ryzen 7 series with up to eight CPU cores naturally also suffers from this. However, AMD has also announced with Ryzen that they want to sit down with the software developers with regard to parallelization, including through workshops. We somewhat doubt that after the Intel efforts over the years, the recent AMD efforts in the desktop segment will bear fruit. We do observe one exception, however, which has suddenly developed into multi-core processors on the software market.

In the last two years one can observe a steady increase in hardware requirements for games, owed to the last generation of consoles, in which one relies on PC hardware and processors with several cores. This not only resulted in greater hardware hunger for PC porting for graphics cards, but also for processors. The introduction of 4K screens did the rest, and the emerging hype with regard to virtual reality should also fuel here again. This is also the reason that most manufacturers of PC peripherals are now producing and marketing their products with a focus on the “gaming area”, because there is still a certain boom there and the margins are right.

The test course

The consequence of the lines previously written is therefore open. We still need a balanced content of test applications for our reviews, which should grasp and represent the desktop area in all its facets.

For example, we rely on the current PCMark 8 and its Creative Suite, in which video chat, web browsing, and image and music editing are taken into account in a simple form. We use Microsoft Office 365 and the common applications such as Excel, PowerPoint and Word in order to be able to serve the typical office tasks of the upscale area. Adobe's Creative Suite 6 is used with popular applications such as Photoshop or After Effects in order to be able to access the upscale applications in the graphic desktop segment or semi-professional segment.

Applications such as Maxon's Cinebench (based on 3D Studio Max), Euler 3D or POV-Ray should then cover the professional, scientific or mathematical area. And in addition, we use the usual applications from the area of ​​image, music and video editing, as well as packers, which are common in the desktop segment.

Incidentally, we did not receive any support from Microsoft for this conversion of the test course - be it with the operating system or the Office applications - or Adobe. A sad picture from our point of view, since it definitely means advertising for the manufacturers, but not entirely insignificant investments for us.

CPU benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks

Audio editing

image editing

video editing

Packer and Encryption

Rendering

Office software
Microsoft Office 365

  • MS Excel
  • MS PowerPoint
  • MS Word
    Adobe CS6 Master
  • Adobe Photoshop
  • Adobe InDesign
  • Adobe After Effects

In the games we had previously bet on fewer and mostly older titles. In addition, it has been rather difficult over the last few years to display practical CPU benchmarks in games, which is why people like to use lower resolutions and the lowest levels of detail so that the graphics load is pushed down and the CPU load is pushed up.

We currently have eight gaming benchmarks at the start, which are tested at a resolution of 1.920 x 1.080 (Full HD), with medium quality settings; Batman: Arkham Knight and Mafia III even with high quality settings. That may not always ensure optimal scaling, but it certainly had a few surprises in our luggage, which prompted us to keep these settings.

We then use the same games in the tests for the integrated graphics solution, but reduced the resolution to 1.366x768 pixels. We have reduced the graphic details to the lowest possible level. This corresponds to the higher quality desktop displays of entry-level solutions, because only there integrated graphics solutions have lost anything at all.

What exactly we test in the games is described in more detail in the individual test chapters.

Other tools

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 Hyper-Threading / Core-Multithreading (CMT), this is activated.

Technical consideration

Comparison of the processors

We have already presented a complete architecture analysis of the new AMD Zen generation here. We limit ourselves today to the consideration of the new Ryzen models and their special features.

Ryzen 5 1400 Ryzen 3 1300X Ryzen 5 2400G Ryzen 3 2200G
Codename Summit Ridge Summit Ridge Raven Ridge Raven Ridge
Production 14 nm FinFet 14 nm FinFet 14 nm FinFet 14 nm FinFet
CCX modules 2 2 2 2
cores 4 (2 + 2) 4 (2 + 2) 4 (2 + 2) 4 (2 + 2)
SMT ja no ja no
L2 cache 2 MB (4 x 512 KB) 2 MB (4 x 512 KB) 2 MB (4 x 512 KB) 2 MB (4 x 512 KB)
L3 cache 8 Mbytes 8 Mbytes 4 Mbytes 4 Mbytes
Base rate 3,2 GHz 3,4 GHz 3,6 GHz 3,5 GHz
Boost max. 3,45 GHz 3,7 GHz 3,9 GHz 3,7 GHz
memory channels 2 (dual-channel) 2 (dual-channel) 2 (dual-channel) 2 (dual-channel)
Storage speed max. DDR4-2666 DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933 DDR4-2933
TDP 65 Watt 65 Watt 65 Watt 65 Watt
Unlocked ja ja ja ja
Integrated graphics No No Ja Ja
Type - - Vega 11 Vega 8
Shader units - - 704 512
Clock GPU - - 1.250 MHz 1.126 MHz
Prices (as of 09.02.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX) from € 140 from € 112 - -
List price AMD 160 US Dollars 100 US Dollars

In principle, AMD is based on the two new Raven Ridge models on the previous Ryzen CPUs of the R5 and R3 series. However, the company has continued to slim down. The L3 cache was shortened from 8 to 4 MB, but the official memory support was increased from DDR4-2667 to DDR4-2933. This is definitely important when it comes to the integrated graphics solution, because it benefits from it.

The actual innovation lies in the integrated graphics unit, which is a slimmed-down version of the new AMD Vega solution. In the case of Ryzen 5 2400G we are talking about Vega 11 and in the case of Ryzen 3 2200G we are talking about Vega 8. These are both shrunk variants of the Vega Radeon RX-64 graphics chip.

New BIOS versions

Of course, the new Ryzen 2000 processors need new BIOS updates so that they can be used on previous mainboards - there is no socket incompatibility, such as Intel often generates artificially. However, it must be noted that the processors presented today only bear the name Ryzen 2000, but are not really the successor to Ryzen 1000. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ASUS and MSI have already announced compatibility with the next generation. ASRock, Biostar and Gigabyte are sure to follow.

Price structure

The new APUs from AMD are clearly based on the Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1300 models and offer only minor changes in CPU performance, which on the other hand should be compensated for by the added integrated graphics. Ultimately, it remains a tough calculation for AMD, because the added graphics unit is of course not compensated for by a shortened L3 cache.

We want to present a more detailed look at the new AMD APUs on the following page.

What is “Raven Ridge”?

"Raven Ridge" refers to AMD's latest APU generation, ie a processor with an integrated graphics unit (iGPU). The processor cores rely on the one introduced last year Zen architecture, and the iGPU builds on Vega. So all old friends? Not quite …

The processor side

As mentioned, the processor side is based on the Zen architecture. With the "normal" processors from the Ryzen 1xxx series, up to 8 cores are used, depending on the model, which are distributed over two compute clusters (CCX), each consisting of four physical cores. Since the APU models only have a maximum of 4 cores (8 threads with active Simultaneous Multithreading, SMT), there is only one CCX.

However, AMD will initially not activate the full hardware equipment. In theory, a CCX offers an 8 MB L3 cache, but the fastest APUs can only use 4 MB of it. To compensate for this disadvantage compared to the "conventional" models, AMD uses the improved production of Globalfoundries in the 14 nm process and increases the clock frequencies with the same TDP.

At first glance, this is very impressive when you consider that an iGPU has also been added. However, it is quite conceivable that the turbo clock frequencies can no longer be used as effectively when the iGPU is active. It will therefore be interesting to see how the new APU models fare against the older Ryzen offshoots, which also have 4 cores (but distributed over 2 CCX).

Ryzen 5 2400G Ryzen 5 1400 Ryzen 3 2200G Ryzen 3 1200
cores 4 (1 CCX) 4 (2 CCX) 4 (1 CCX) 4 (2 CCX)
Threads 8 8 4 4
Base rate 3,6 GHz 3,2 GHz 3,5 GHz 3,1 GHz
Max. Turbo clock 3,9 GHz 3,45 GHz 3,7 GHz 3,4 GHz
L3 cache 4 Mbytes 8 Mbytes 4 Mbytes 8 Mbytes
iGPU ja no ja no
GPU PCIe lanes 8 16 8 16
TDP 65 Watt 65 Watt 65 Watt 65 Watt

In order to increase the performance a bit, AMD also has the turbo mode (Precision Boost called) slightly revised. While the first generation of the Ryzen offshoots only knows three turbo levels (off, max. 2 cores under load, more than 2 cores under load), AMD allows a finer adjustment with the APU models. With the APUs, algorithms calculate how high the clock may be so that the APU remains within the set TDP limit and the temperature limits. In practice, this should simply mean that when the limit values ​​are reached, the clock rate is gradually reduced by 25 MHz until all values ​​are in the permitted zones again. According to AMD, up to 1.000 adjustments per second are possible. Nevertheless, more effective turbo clock frequencies should be possible in practice than with the Ryzen 1xxx models.

Finally, it should be noted that discrete graphics cards can only be connected to the APU models via a PCIe x8 connector. The other eight lines are probably used internally for the iGPU. However, this should not make a noticeable difference, so that AMD's decision to discontinue the Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1200 or replace them with the APUs is quite understandable.

The graphics page

In principle, AMD also relies on the tried and tested for the integrated graphics unit. AMD uses Vega offshoots, which are of course not quite as potent as their "big" relatives Vega 56 and Vega 64. However, they are identical in terms of the underlying technology. However, this does not mean that the new iGPUs are suitable for 4K and the “Very High” level of detail. The key data alone indicate an approx. 7 to 10 times lower performance than the Vega 64 offers. Nonetheless, many low-end cards are likely to have their problems with the new iGPU.

Ryzen 5 2400G Ryzen 3 2200G Vega 64
GPU clock Max. 1.250 MHz Max. 1.100 MHz Max. 1.546 MHz
Graphics cores 11 (704 ALUs) 8 (512 ALUs) 64 (4.096 ALUs)
TMUs 44 32 256
ROPs 16 16 64
HWS 2 2 2
ACE 4 4 4
Throughput @ SP 1,76 TFLOPS 1,126 TFLOPS 12,6 TFLOPS
TDP 65 watts [with CPU] 65 watts [with CPU] 295 watts [alone]

The connection

For communication between the processor side and the iGPU, AMD uses the tried and tested "Infinity Fabric", which was responsible for communication between the compute clusters in the first Ryzen models. In view of the reduced PCIe lines, we are currently assuming that the iGPU is connected to the interconnect via an equivalent of eight PCIe lines.

In total, AMD, or rather Globalfoundries, needs around 4,94 billion transistors for the APUs, which, thanks to a particularly dense manufacturing process, leads to a die size of almost 210 mm².

Practical tests

Storage support

There has been an innovation in storage support. The new Ryzen APUs now support up to DDR4-2933 - the previous Ryzen models could, according to the specification, address a maximum of two single-ranked modules up to DDR4-2667. In terms of memory support in particular, a lot has changed in the BIOS versions of the motherboard manufacturers over the past few months.

In addition to the special G.Skill DDR4-3200 modules supplied by AMD, which are labeled "AMD compatible", we were also able to easily connect two other G.Skill models and a Crucial Ballistix memory kit with DDR4 2933, even if they have not been specially tested for the new AMD systems.

You should keep certain limitations of the memory controller in mind when purchasing and make sure that you use single-ranked modules if you want high clock rates.

overclocking

The two new AMD APUs based on Ryzen technology can of course still be overclocked using the free CPU multiplier. But we didn't take much time at this point and only devoted ourselves to the Ryzen 5 2400G in a short phase. We expected a possible 4 GHz on all four CPU cores - but that was definitely not possible with standard voltage. Our system started neither at 4,0 GHz nor at 3,9 GHz for all CPU cores. A start was only possible at 3,8 GHz on all processor cores at standard voltage. Stable work under maximum load wasn't possible - Prime95 caused the system to crash. Fine-tuning seems appropriate here, and our comments on cooling in the next chapter should of course also be observed at this point.

Temperature behavior

After the Ryzen 7 presentations, AMD mentioned that the Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700X have an additional temperature offset - a surcharge of 20 ° C. AMD did not explain the reasons in detail, but pointed out that it was related to the XFR feature. Ryzen 5 1600X also has this temperature offset, but a corrected value has been supplied since the new BIOS versions.

Ryzen Master in its new version only provides the corrected value, other tools such as HWiNFO64 offer both values. With the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G we only saw one value, so we are currently assuming that no offset correction will be made here.

Another peculiarity came with Ryzen 2000, however, because AMD no longer uses solder to connect the CPU dies to the heatspreader, but takes the cheaper route and uses thermal paste. Of course, this means that the CPU temperatures rise despite the low power consumption. If you use the included Wraith-Cooler (boxed model), the cooling performance is still just sufficient, but the temperatures jump in regions of 80 ° C. Overclocking will not be crowned with much success with this cooling solution. With our Noctua cooler, we still achieve reasonable and unproblematic values ​​with whisper-quiet cooling, but these are of course now significantly higher than those of the previous Ryzen-based models. However, we have our frown on the offset corrections of the previous Ryzen models have already been noted and explained.

Overall comparison

We also assume three points of view in this comparison: Idle (which can be neglected in principle from our point of view), Core2MaxPerf as the load scenario, which should simulate video encoding, and Prime95 as the theoretical full load. While our temperature information in idle and video encoding represents the mean of the temperatures of all existing CPU cores, we show the highest value determined in the full load scenario, since a value that is significantly too high can lead to protective measures for the system.

We have now also taken the temperature values ​​with HWiNFO64, as we had the impression that it leads to significantly fewer fluctuations compared to the "Ryzen Master Tool" - a subjective statement.

Temperatures

Idle

Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

35
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

34
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

33
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

33
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

33
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

32
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

32
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

32
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

32
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

31
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

31
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

30
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

29
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

29
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

29
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

29
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

29
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

28
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

28
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

28
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

28
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

28
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

27
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

26
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

26
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

26
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

25
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

25
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

24
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

24
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

24
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

24
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

24
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

24
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

23
° C
Temperatures

Video encoding (C2MP)

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

72
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

68
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

68
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

67
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

67
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

66
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

65
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

64
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

62
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

62
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

61
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

58
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

57
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

57
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

56
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

56
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

55
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

55
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

55
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

54
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

54
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

53
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

53
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

53
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

52
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

52
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

52
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

52
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

51
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

51
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

51
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

50
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

50
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

49
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

49
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

48
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

48
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

46
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

44
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

43
° C
Power consumption CPU

Video encoding (C2MP)

Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

100%
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

82%
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

79%
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

71%
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

68%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

66%
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

65%
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

64%
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

61%
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

59%
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

59%
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

57%
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

57%
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

56%
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

49%
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

47%
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

46%
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

43%
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

43%
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

42%
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

41%
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

41%
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41%
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

40%
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

36%
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

35%
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

34%
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

33%
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

32%
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

31%
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

31%
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

27%
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

26%
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

22%
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

22%
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

20%
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

0%
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

0%
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

0%
Watt

Total system 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 3000. We record the maximum values ​​over a period of 20 minutes using the device's log function and show them in watts.

So far we have used Core2MaxPerf as a full load scenario for all processors, but the tool has certainly generated a certain load in the meantime. However, according to our findings, this is more comparable to the load that Handbrake achieves with video encoding - a high load across all existing cores.

Today, maximum full utilization of the CPUs can practically only be achieved through mathematical or scientific calculations. We are currently using Prime95 to simulate this. It should be noted, however, that there is a certain risk in the representation here. Because the maximum values ​​are logged and output, we of course do not record Intel's countermeasures with these peaks! If the turbo clock blows the TDP, then protective mechanisms should intervene and reset the CPU clock and voltage appropriately - always provided that the mainboard is playing along, because this is the tip of the scales! Quite a few mainboard manufacturers ignore the specifications of the CPU and, for example, clock all of them instead of just a few cores to maximum clock. Nevertheless, we record the short-term higher values ​​through the recording and cannot extract them.

In addition, the mainboard used is also decisive in other areas. Because depending on the mainboard implementation in the structure of the power supply or depending on other equipment features, this can very well affect the power consumption of the entire system - experience from the past has shown this.

We have now compared our values ​​- with the exception of those of the high-end platform with DDR4 support from Intel (LGA2011-3) - on at least two, in most cases even on three different motherboards and can deduce from this that the behavior is very similar is. It often became problematic in cases where you worked with low-cost CPUs but high-end mainboards, because there was usually an overkill of additional features and default settings from the mainboard manufacturers that are prepared for OC. In the identified cases with serious outliers, we changed the circuit boards.

Total system power consumption

Idle

Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

104
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

100
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

87
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

84
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

73
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

69
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

66
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

65
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

60
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

59
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

58
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

57
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

55
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

55
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

52
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

52
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

51
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

50
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

48
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

46
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

45
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

45
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

45
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

45
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

45
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

44
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

43
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

43
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

43
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

42
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

42
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

42
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

40
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

40
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

37
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

37
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

37
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

32
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

30
Watt
Total system power consumption

Video encoding (C2MP)

Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

241
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

221
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

209
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

201
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

192
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

170
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

155
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

147
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

147
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

144
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

140
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

139
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

138
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

135
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

134
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

132
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

131
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

130
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

123
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

118
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

110
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

109
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

103
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

102
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

98
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

98
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

94
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

90
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

88
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

88
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

87
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

87
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

84
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

81
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

78
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

71
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

68
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

67
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

67
Watt
Total system power consumption

Math calculations (Prime 95)

Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

305
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

301
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

287
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

258
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

238
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

219
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

217
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

211
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

209
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

207
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

200
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

195
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

192
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

192
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

190
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

189
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

184
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

169
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

161
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

160
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

155
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

153
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

142
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

141
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

137
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

123
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

122
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

121
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

120
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

113
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

110
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

108
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

106
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

104
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

104
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

101
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

91
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

83
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

78
Watt

Power consumption of the CPU

In the meantime, we record the power consumption of the CPU using HWInfo64 - for Intel platforms we previously used Intel's own tools. HWInfo64 now seems to be quite reliable in its measurements when outputting the value for the power consumption of the CPU and SoC power. We compare the values ​​with the power consumption measured using a clamp-on ammeter on the 12V line. Caution: Not all supplies at AMD are made via the 12V line, so the measurements using the clamp ammeter are only intended as a guide.

Again, we only map the maximum recorded peak values, as well as the total system power consumption. In the case of Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G, it should be mentioned that these peaks were really short-lived! The protection circuits of the system took effect within 60 seconds, so that the Ryzen 5 2400G was simply throttled above the clock rate of the processor cores and fell to below 65 watts - exactly what AMD promised and when considering the total power consumption fell from 140 to 120 watts to the level of the Ryzen 3 2200G.

Of course, this consideration also applies at one point or another to other processors in comparison, although this does not always apply to the observations on Intel models, which is not due to Intel, but to the mainboard manufacturers! If these ignore the specifications of the CPU manufacturer, the results will be falsified. Unfortunately, Intel obviously tolerates this.

Power consumption CPU

Idle

Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

22,7
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

21,8
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

19,0
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

17,7
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

17,5
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

15,8
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

14,3
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

13,0
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

12,8
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

12,5
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

12,4
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

12,1
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

12,1
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

11,5
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

11,4
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

11,3
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

11,2
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

9,9
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

9,6
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

9,2
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

8,7
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

8,3
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

6,7
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

6,5
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

6,5
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

6,4
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

6,4
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

6,2
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

6,0
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

5,9
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

4,9
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

4,7
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

0,8
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

0,8
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

0,8
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

0,7
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

0,7
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

Watt
Power consumption CPU

Video encoding (C2MP)

Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

137,9
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

113,1
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

108,7
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

97,8
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

93,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

91,2
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

89,9
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

88,3
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

84,6
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

81,1
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

80,8
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

78,4
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

78,0
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

77,5
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

67,8
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

64,5
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

63,8
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

59,3
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

59,0
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

57,7
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

57,2
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

56,9
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

56,8
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

55,5
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

49,2
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

48,1
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

46,7
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

45,7
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

43,6
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

43,4
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

43,0
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

36,7
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

35,8
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

30,5
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

30,0
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

27,0
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

Watt

Performance of Vega 11 and Vega 8

Let's get to the other strengths that Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G have to offer, namely the new integrated graphics solution in the form of Vega 11 and Vega 8. It seems as if AMD is finally the dream of combining GPU and CPU in a positive unity succeeded. While the previous AMD APUs were definitely positive on the graphics performance side, the CPU performance was often stuck in the end. However, since the Zen architecture, this problem has been eliminated.

We only partially share the euphoria that the new APUs can certainly offer the potential for full HD gaming in the entry-level segment. Certainly there will be one or the other title that can be played with clear cutbacks in terms of image quality in this resolution, but low-quality settings are generally not nice to look at, and yet there are titles that still get stuck.

From our point of view, this is also the reason why AMD primarily focused on 720p resolution in the Reviewer's Guide for the performance of the integrated graphics and did not consistently focus on the 1.080p resolution. What was very noticeable in our tests was the fact that we were confronted with significant reloading stuttering - this was shown beyond measure in Full HD. Things improved a little when we switched to 720p. Nevertheless, we were able to observe the problem there, which in the end was certainly due to the limited main memory of 2 GB for the graphics unit.

In addition, there was a driver problem for our tests today in the form of the fact that our previously selected resolution of 1.366 x 768 pixels was absolutely not accepted by the driver. The manual creation of such a resolution (on two monitors) was not accepted, nor does Windows 10 currently offer the option (as in the past) that such a monitor resolution could be set. As a result, our previously collected results had become useless.

Assassin's Creed Syndicate

1.080p - Low Quality

Assassin's Creed: Syndicate

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

21,59
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

17,77
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Assassin's Creed: Syndicate

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

32,75
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

27,96
Frames per Second [more is better]

Batman - Arkham Knight1.080p - Low Quality

Batman: Arkham Knight

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

25,53
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

21,68
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Batman: Arkham Knight

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

39,49
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

33,79
Frames per Second [more is better]

Battlefield 1

1.080p - Low Quality

Battlefield 1

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

53,96
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

50,23
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Battlefield 1

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

64,61
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

60,09
Frames per Second [more is better]

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided1.080p - Low Quality

DeusEX: Mankind Divided

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

33,10
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

30,60
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

DeusEX: Mankind Divided

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

40,82
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

37,12
Frames per Second [more is better]

DOOM (2016)

1.080p - Low Quality

Doom (2016)

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

13,87
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

12,27
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Doom (2016)

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

35,34
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

32,44
Frames per Second [more is better]

Mafia III1.080p - Low Quality

Doom (2016)

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

13,87
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

12,27
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Doom (2016)

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

35,34
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

32,44
Frames per Second [more is better]

Rise of the Tomb Raider

1.080p - Low Quality

Rise of the Tomb Raider

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

27,51
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

23,80
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

Rise of the Tomb Raider

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

30,08
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

26,89
Frames per Second [more is better]

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

1.080p - Low Quality

The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

1920 x 1080 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

23,41
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

19,50
Frames per Second [more is better]

720p - Medium Quality

The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

1280 x 720 [No AA / 16xAF]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

38,02
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

32,88
Frames per Second [more is better]

It is a bit surprising how close Vega 8 and Vega 11 are in some games. We cannot currently judge whether this is ultimately due to the limited access to the main memory and reloading stuttering.

The fact remains, however, that AMD's new graphics solution makes Intel's competition look bad again. The UHD-630 graphics from Intel, as it can currently be found in the Core i5-8400, can not in the beginning advance into the performance regions of Vega 8 or 11. We don't want to comment on driver problems with game support at all. At most, Intel's Iris Pro graphics implementation, last seen in the fifth Intel Core generation, would be able to just keep up, but it is yesterday's news and will probably not be further developed for cost reasons.

Compared to the previous in-house competition in the form of the old AMD APUs with R7 graphics unit, Vega can also shine and leaves them in most cases clearly behind. The picture that AMD draws with the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G is simply round on this point.

The question still remains, where exactly can AMD's integrated graphics solution be grouped against a separate graphics card. Here, AMD compares itself with an NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 - a product in the range of just under 80 euros - and shows itself sometimes in front, sometimes in the back and sometimes at eye level. This once again wants to make it clear that there is currently practically no competition in this price segment. Investing in an 80 Euro graphics card for gamers is practically no longer worthwhile if you can buy a processor with an integrated solution that offers the same performance for 90 to 170 Euro.

Benchmarks

Test suites

PCMark 8 Creation

PCMark 8 offers various benchmark options. We have limited ourselves to the Creation-Suite, which offers benchmarks in the area of ​​music, image and video editing as well as group chats in the video area or web surfing and which would like to represent an upscale but usual creative PC behavior. A gaming mode is also included in the overall score. PCMark 8 uses free applications here in order to be able to carry out its evaluation and is therefore only an indication of the selected applications. This must by no means be compared with an overarching evaluation of all application areas in our test suite.

In the case of the Creation Suite, however, we ultimately decided not to present the individual evaluation of the results, as the results very often show no reaction to architectural improvements, but primarily of clock speed and here and there of cache and only rarely of many CPU Cores benefit.

Everyday Internet surfing can be used as an example. PCMark 8 approaches here with the Jungle Pin and Amazonias tests. But whether we use a Core i7-6950X or a Core i3-6300, in the test field the candidates in one or the other test were very close to each other, so that the entire test field of the processors was only separated by a maximum of one second ( Jungle pin region 70 seconds, Amazonia test region 50 seconds). But PCMark also starts with low hardware requirements for 4K video editing. A Core i5-6500 with a 3,6 GHz clock is faster than a Core i7-5960X with a 3,5 GHz clock, but clearly more arithmetic units.

PCMark 8 suite

Creation Suite

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

5797
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

5788
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

5766
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

5702
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

5657
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

5611
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

5564
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

5536
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

5523
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

5453
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

5443
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

5421
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

5411
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

5383
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

5357
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

5354
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

5319
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

5309
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

5295
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

5234
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

5231
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

5152
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

5108
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

5075
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

5066
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

5000
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

4983
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

4978
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

4947
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

4933
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

4896
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

4809
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

4798
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

4758
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

4654
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

4564
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

4541
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

4421
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

4348
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

4212
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

4075
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

3981
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

3948
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

3872
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

3811
Points (higher values ​​are better)

Ultimately, there are other applications that respond a little better to multi-core technology or architecture, for example video encoding for group chat or image processing. In the sum of the 15 tests that the PCMark 8 Creation Suite completes, and how Futuremark classifies and evaluates these results internally, the overall score can be considered helpful. The individual tests must not be included in our overall rating, because they could significantly distort the picture.

Office 365 Score

In the Microsoft Office 365 test of the PCMark 8 suite, a variety of tasks are carried out in the programs Excel, PowerPoint and Word, as they are common in everyday life or office use. We go into the details in the individual evaluation of the results.

But here, too, the fact remains that Futuremark did not concentrate on any very special tasks or tried to push the load scenarios to a maximum. A typical means should be achieved, as is usual with such word processors, spreadsheets or presentations in everyday life. There is of course a separate weighting for the overall result.

The overall score of PCMark 8 for the Office 365 suite is actually quite useful, which is why we include this overall value in our rating. However, we will also show the individual evaluations.

PCMark 8 suite

MS Office 365 Suite

Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

4522
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

4432
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

4103
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

4092
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

4071
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

4037
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

4037
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

4001
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

3981
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

3968
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

3953
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

3896
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

3877
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

3848
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

3797
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

3784
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

3724
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

3719
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

3665
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

3633
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

3596
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

3559
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

3524
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

3509
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

3502
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

3458
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

3456
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

3444
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

3415
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

3412
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

3348
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

3300
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

3205
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

3193
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

3164
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

3135
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

3098
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

3015
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

2808
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

2747
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

2685
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

2676
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

2668
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

2644
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

2589
Points (higher values ​​are better)

Microsoft Office 365: Individual Results

The basis for the Office 365 test is also PCMark 8, which comes with a test run for the Excel, PowerPoint and Word applications. Different tasks are carried out in the individual applications.

Bei Microsoft Word a corresponding document is opened and copy actions are carried out and saved in it, the document window is enlarged and amounts of text in the document are moved. In addition, there is simulated text input, including the insertion of images in the document. As our benchmark results quickly show, Word usually only needs a dual-core processor in the Office 365 version, and beyond that, Word only benefits from the clock speed.

    In detail, the suite evaluates the following 13 work steps:

  • start_application_time
  • open_source_document_time
  • open_destination_document_time
  • copy_and_paste_time
  • save_target_document_1_time
  • resize_target_window_time
  • cut_and_paste_time
  • save_target_document_2_time
  • type_text_to_destination_document_time
  • text_typing_busy_time
  • save_target_document_3_time
  • add_pictures_to_destination_document
  • save_target_document_4_time

The result we reported in seconds does not correspond to the averaged weighting of PCMark 8, but to the actual working time from the start to the end of the tasks.

Microsoft Office 365

Microsoft Word

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

92,60
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

92,70
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

93,90
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

94,00
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

94,10
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

94,20
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

94,20
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

94,40
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

94,50
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

94,60
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

94,70
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

94,70
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

94,70
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

94,90
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

94,90
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

94,90
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

95,00
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

95,10
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

95,20
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

95,20
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

95,30
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

95,30
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

95,30
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

95,30
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

95,70
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

95,80
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

95,90
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

96,10
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

96,20
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

96,40
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

96,40
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

96,50
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

96,50
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

96,70
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

96,80
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

97,20
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

97,50
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

98,30
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

98,60
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

99,10
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

99,20
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

99,80
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

106,90
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

107,60
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

109,10
Seconds [less is better]

You don't have to let the benchmarks melt on your tongue, because it quickly becomes clear that MS Word's 1.000-euro and 150-euro processors are in the same weight class. We see the fastest CPU separated from the slowest Intel processor in the test field by just 5 to 6 seconds. Unfortunately, a clear indication that typical office software can no longer place high demands on today's hardware resources.

The Microsoft Excel test relies on around 241.000 cells in its work file, enlarges the work window, copies amounts of files into the worksheet including formula evaluations, changes formulas in various cells and adds formulas to cells. There are also changes in the cell values. Excel is indeed multi-core capable, but only to the extent of the requirements and when Windows recognizes that more is not necessary and the application is not forced to face any challenges. Then the standards are set.

    In detail, the test performs the following tasks and takes the following times into account:

  • start_application_time
  • open_document_time
  • resize_window_time
  • copy_data_and_compute_time
  • copy_plain_data_time
  • copy_formulas_time
  • copy_data_and_compute_2_time
  • edit_cells_time
  • save_document_time

PCMark also uses these nine parameters to create its own value in the overall mean using weightings. Once again, we have only shown the total duration of the work process below.

Microsoft Office 365

Microsoft Excel

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

15,40
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

15,80
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

16,10
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

16,30
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

16,80
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

16,90
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

16,90
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

17,10
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

17,30
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

17,50
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

17,60
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

17,80
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

17,80
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

17,90
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

18,00
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

18,00
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

18,10
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

18,30
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

18,30
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

18,40
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

18,50
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

18,60
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

18,70
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

18,90
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

18,90
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

19,00
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

19,10
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

19,30
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

19,40
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

19,40
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

19,90
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

19,90
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

20,10
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

20,10
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

20,80
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

20,80
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

21,00
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

21,40
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

21,90
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

22,20
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

22,20
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

25,00
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

27,10
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

28,20
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

28,80
Seconds [less is better]

And the example of the Pentium G4400 shows more than clearly that Excel certainly benefits from four CPU cores - but four threads do it too. However, a detailed analysis also shows that this typical desktop application does not necessarily benefit from architectural improvements, but is primarily on the pulse and can also react to cache.

If we leave the two-thread processors out of the picture (Pentium G4400), it becomes clear once again that there is only a performance difference of up to 4 seconds between the fastest and the slowest processor with 16 to 5 threads.

The Microsoft PowerPoint test works with a total of 15 slides, which are then transferred to a PDF format. Loading times are also taken into account in this MS Office test, which is why we use an identical SSD in all cases so that there are no corruptions in the result. The application windows are enlarged and we look at the different slides of the presentation, add new slides, as well as images and text, position them accordingly and export the final result in PDF format.

Even at the turn of the year 2016/2017, Microsoft PowerPoint is still in good hands for desktop use with fast dual-core processors (with SMT support). However, our tests also show that multi-core CPUs are taken into account, even though the performance advantages did not necessarily speak for themselves. The clock rate, but also the cache of the CPUs, can tip the scales here.

    In detail, the test performs the following tasks and takes the following times into account:

  • start_application_time
  • open_document_time
  • rezize window time
  • browse_document_time
  • add slide time
  • add and adjust image time
  • add text time
  • export to pdf time
Microsoft Office 365

Microsoft Power Point

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

30,40
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

30,90
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

31,80
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

34,50
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

34,90
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

35,60
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

36,10
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

36,50
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

36,60
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

37,10
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

37,40
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

37,70
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

37,80
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

37,90
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

38,10
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

38,70
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

38,90
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

39,00
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

39,10
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

39,20
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

39,20
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

39,20
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

39,80
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

39,90
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

39,90
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

40,10
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

40,30
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

40,60
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

40,80
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

41,10
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

41,70
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

41,80
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41,90
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

42,90
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

44,10
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

45,70
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

46,00
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

46,60
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

47,00
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

51,80
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

54,00
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

57,20
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

59,90
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

60,50
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

64,40
ms [less is better]

Of the Office results observed so far, the PowerPoint test still shows the best rashes. A processor with only two threads drops massively. Then quickly and slowly separate at least around 10 seconds.

Adobe CS 6 Master

The basis for testing the (semi-) professional programs from Adobe is once again Futuremark's PCMark 8, which uses the Photoshop, InDesign and After Effects applications for advice. In most cases, Adobe Photoshop is likely to be the most popular application in the suite, which is why two different test runs are included here.

On the one hand, we have it with the test Adobe Photoshop Light to do, which works with image sizes between 2.500 x 1.677 and 6.048 x 4.032 pixels. In addition to opening, saving and closing the file template, we change the color balance, add shadows and shine and perform a downscaling including bicubic interpolation, then apply an unsharp mask and save the result.

With this task, the manufacturer's professional program seems to be less impressed by four CPU cores, but rather benefits primarily from two CPU cores and clock; Cache sizes also seem to be included.

    In detail, the test performs the following tasks and takes the following times into account:

  • start_application_time
  • process image 1 - 12 time
  • open_image_13_time
  • adjust_colors_of_image_13_time
  • resize_image_13_time
  • apply_unsharp_mask_to_image_13_time
  • save_image_13_time
  • open_image_14_time
  • adjust_colors_of_image_14_time
  • resize_image_14_time
  • apply_unsharp_mask_to_image_14_time
  • save_image_14_time
  • close_photoshop_time
  • However, we do not take into account the points “program start” and “program end” in terms of time!
Adobe Creative Suite Master 6

Adobe Photoshop - light load

Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

58,8
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

63,1
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

63,5
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

66,5
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

66,7
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

67,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

67,2
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

67,2
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

67,2
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

67,3
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

67,7
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

67,8
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

68,6
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

68,7
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

71,8
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

71,8
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

72,0
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

72,1
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

72,3
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

72,5
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

72,6
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

72,7
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

72,8
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

73,2
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

73,3
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

73,3
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

73,4
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

73,7
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

73,7
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

73,8
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

74,1
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

74,1
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

74,3
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

74,4
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

75,3
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

75,6
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

76,3
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

77,4
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

77,8
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

79,1
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

79,6
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

80,0
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

80,7
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

80,8
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

81,5
Seconds [less is better]

In the second run we have it with the Adobe Photoshop Heavy Load to do. We start right away with PSD sources in the format 5.184 x 7.744 pixels, which are opened and provided with an upscaling and a change in color depth. And the color selection areas are moved to new layers. The layers are merged and one of the layers is overlaid with a blurring effect. After the layers have been merged, they are overlaid with a Gaussian blur, gradient masks are created and removed again, and the opacity of the layers is changed. We then export in various file formats, add additional filters and scale the size. Finally, a new unsharp mask is applied, and the image is exported as JPEG format and saved.

Even if only slightly, the heavy run shows us that Adobe's Photoshop can basically also use four CPU cores, although clock and cache still have priority in this scenario.

    In the "heavy pass", the following work tasks must be mastered:

  • start_application_time
  • open_document_time
  • resize_image_time
  • edit_color_mode_time
  • create_color_range_layer_time
  • merge_layers_time
  • apply_lens_blur_time
  • edit_lens_blur_layer_time
  • remerge_layers_time
  • apply_gaussian_blur_time
  • clear_gradient_time
  • set_top_layer_opacity_time
  • save_document_time
  • export_to_tiff_time
  • flatten_and_resize_image_time
  • apply_unsharp_mask_time
  • export_to_jpeg_time
  • close_photoshop_time
  • However, we do not take into account the points “program start” and “program end” in terms of time!
Adobe Creative Suite Master 6

Adobe Photoshop - heavy load

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

157,8
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

160,0
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

161,3
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

167,8
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

172,4
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

176,2
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

178,6
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

181,8
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

182,7
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

183,3
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

184,9
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

185,8
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

186,6
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

186,9
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

189,1
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

190,6
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

192,2
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

192,7
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

192,8
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

192,9
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

193,9
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

193,9
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

194,3
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

194,9
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

197,7
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

197,7
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

198,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

202,3
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

203,5
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

204,2
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

204,5
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

204,9
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

210,6
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

212,7
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

213,0
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

217,4
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

218,7
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

221,1
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

221,4
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

224,5
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

247,6
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

252,1
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

255,7
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

272,2
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

277,8
Seconds [less is better]

The third part of the test deals with Adobe InDesign. A file with a size of 385 MByte is used, which contains 40 pages and 42 images. After opening the file, the images are changed in size and position, additional optical and text elements are added and settings in the document output are changed. Finally, the changes are saved in a new file and exported as PDF format.

In this run, Adobe InDesign shows that it can benefit from four processor cores. However, one cannot achieve an outstanding benefit, not even from more CPU cores.

    The following tasks need to be mastered and assessed:

  • open_indesign_time
  • open_document_time
  • place_images_time
  • adjust_margins_time
  • add_text_time
  • save_documents_time
  • export_to_pdf_time
  • close_indesign_time
  • However, we do not take into account the points “program start” and “program end” in terms of time!
Adobe Creative Suite Master 6

Adobe InDesign

Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

60,1
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

63,8
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

65,4
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

65,6
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

66,5
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

69,6
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

70,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

70,7
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

70,8
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

71,0
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

71,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

71,8
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

71,8
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

72,0
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

72,1
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

72,3
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

72,6
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

72,6
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

73,0
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

73,2
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

73,4
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

74,2
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

74,2
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

74,6
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

74,9
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

75,2
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

75,5
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

75,6
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

76,1
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

77,8
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

78,2
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

78,9
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

79,1
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

80,1
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

80,7
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

80,9
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

81,5
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

82,8
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

83,8
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

85,1
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

85,3
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

86,0
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

86,9
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

87,6
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

93,8
Seconds [less is better]

Finally then also occurs Adobe After Effects in the ring with an 890 MB video file, which is available in the image format 1.920 x 1.080 (Full HD) and is converted into an uncompressed AVI format via AERender.

And at this point we're back to video editing - an area that has benefited from multi-core processors for years. The clock rate may play a certain role, the cache to a lesser extent, but the amount of CPU cores or supported threads can have an impact here.

    We take into account the following areas of the test procedure:

  • time_work_begin
  • time_work_extra
  • time_work_end
  • During the test, we do not look at initialization times and program end times, but only at the working hours.
Adobe Creative Suite Master 6

Adobe After Effects

Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

64,0
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

67,5
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

69,1
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

69,3
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

72,2
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

74,1
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

75,0
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

77,1
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

77,6
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

77,9
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

78,3
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

81,0
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

81,7
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

83,4
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

85,1
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

86,5
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

88,4
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

89,3
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

91,4
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

92,5
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

93,8
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

94,8
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

96,3
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

97,1
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

97,5
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

99,0
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

102,2
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

102,9
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

103,9
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

104,8
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

104,9
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

105,6
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

113,6
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

116,6
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

119,8
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

120,2
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

125,7
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

127,8
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

130,9
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

139,8
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

143,4
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

163,4
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

177,5
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

193,2
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

204,6
Seconds [less is better]

Scientific calculations

Euler 3D 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 Euler 3D benchmark Is there ... here.

Euler3D benchmark

Score

Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

13,58
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

13,30
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

13,27
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

12,92
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

11,69
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

8,51
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

8,11
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

8,08
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

8,02
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

8,01
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

7,95
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

7,89
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

7,87
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

7,65
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

7,56
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

7,54
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

7,35
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

7,31
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

6,99
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

6,98
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

6,78
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

6,25
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

5,98
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

5,93
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

5,91
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

5,86
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

5,76
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

5,75
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

5,52
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

5,45
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

5,13
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

5,11
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

4,77
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

4,69
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

4,46
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

4,35
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

4,32
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

4,32
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

4,16
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

4,11
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

4,00
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

3,97
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

3,72
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

2,77
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

2,77
Points (higher values ​​are better)
Euler3D benchmark

time

Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

12,92
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

14,72
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

15,01
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

15,03
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

17,12
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

23,51
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

24,23
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

24,75
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

24,94
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

24,98
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

25,15
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

25,35
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

25,41
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

26,11
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

26,48
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

26,52
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

27,22
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

28,62
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

28,64
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

30,09
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

31,00
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

32,01
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

33,54
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

33,60
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

33,86
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

34,09
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

34,71
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

34,76
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

36,25
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

36,73
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

38,97
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

39,13
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41,94
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

42,66
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

44,88
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

46,03
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

46,22
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

46,26
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

48,12
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

48,92
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

50,38
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

53,76
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

55,59
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

72,32
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

73,33
Seconds (smaller values ​​are better)

Note on the Intel results of the Core i5-5675C and Core i7-5775C processors:
The Euler 3D benchmark has advantages here, for example compared to the Skylake models, which at first glance seems wrong with regard to the clock ratios. For us, however, the cause seems to be the eDRAM of the Iris Pro 6200 graphics unit, which acts as a kind of level 4 cache on these processors and can also be used by the CPU cores. Euler 3D was not created on the broad mass of desktop applications either, which explains why the behavior comes to the fore more at this point than in other applications.

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 into MP3 files with the help of iTunes, LAME and the Nero AAC encoder. A conversion to the Ogg Vorbis format is also used. Sobering is the fact that all programs are still strictly single-threaded. The latest applications from 2016/2017 simply can't do anything with multiple CPU cores.

iTunes

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 twelfth revision.

We are currently using the 64-bit version. However, this version does not yet make use of multi-core processors for encoding either. We convert our mentioned test file into MP3 format, at the highest possible quality level.

ITunes 12.1.3

Wave to MP3 conversion

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

27,79
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

28,01
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

28,20
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

28,68
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

29,06
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

29,39
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

30,10
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

30,30
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

30,36
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

31,87
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

32,05
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

32,11
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

32,44
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

32,53
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

32,72
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

32,75
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

33,02
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

33,53
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

33,64
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

33,66
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

33,86
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

34,20
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

34,50
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

34,71
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

34,74
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

34,95
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

35,14
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

35,41
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

35,50
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

35,79
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

36,44
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

36,98
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

37,34
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

39,76
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

39,88
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

40,50
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41,86
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

42,83
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

43,46
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

44,31
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

44,59
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

45,35
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

46,17
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

50,66
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

51,47
Seconds [less is better]

Nero AAC

The Nero AAC encoder is a freely available encoder that is called from the command line and is used, for example, in the Nero suites. We are using the latest version 1.5.4.0, which dates from 2010. Since then there have been no further extensions or changes. As with iTunes, multi-core support is left out here as well. The most important criteria for high performance are therefore the clock speed and powerful SSE units. Here, too, we convert our 710 MB wave file into an MP3 format.

Nero AAC encoder

Wave to MP3 conversion

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

31,72
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

32,42
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

32,53
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

33,06
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

33,46
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

34,79
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

35,37
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

36,19
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

37,09
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

37,15
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

38,82
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

39,39
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

39,81
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

40,00
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

40,01
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

40,37
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

40,40
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

40,55
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

40,66
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

40,85
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

40,96
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41,04
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

41,12
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

41,24
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

41,46
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

41,89
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

41,92
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

42,84
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

42,97
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

43,15
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

44,15
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

44,68
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

45,48
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

45,86
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

46,37
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

46,81
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

48,40
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

48,79
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

49,29
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

50,50
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

51,97
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

52,46
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

54,88
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

59,16
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

59,31
Seconds [less is better]

LAME

LAME is an open source encoder to convert audio files to MP3 format. The big difference to the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft's MP3 encoder is that LAME is free. This is why LAME is also used in a large number of software products. We are relying on the latest version 3.99, which unfortunately dates from 2011 and has not missed any further optimizations in recent years.

This leaves the sad fact that we are dealing with a single-threaded application that does not benefit from multi-core processors. Signs of changes were found in forum posts. A variant with dual-core support was mentioned, which apparently worked more slowly than the single-threaded version.

3.99.5 blade

Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio)

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

17,80
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

18,39
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

18,61
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

18,68
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

18,69
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

18,85
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

20,09
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

20,10
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

20,69
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

20,78
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

21,06
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

21,13
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

21,64
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

21,69
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

21,70
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

21,89
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

22,11
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

22,21
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

22,22
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

22,23
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

22,24
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

22,43
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

22,63
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

22,81
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

22,85
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

23,15
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

23,16
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

23,21
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

23,61
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

24,05
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

24,10
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

24,16
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

24,36
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

24,55
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

26,02
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

26,17
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

27,05
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

27,27
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

27,99
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

28,19
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

28,92
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

29,05
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

31,29
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

32,75
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

35,68
Seconds [less is better]

OggEnc

OggEnc is again a free audio encoder. It converts audio files into the Ogg container format. The structure and structure of Ogg are similar to the MPEG-4 file format MP4. We use version 2.88 of OggEnc - also the most recent version and this time even from 2015. But here, too, there is still no support for multi-core CPUs, so the main focus is on clock speed and one CPU core.

We also use this tool via the command line to convert our wave file into the Ogg format. At this point, music enthusiasts are of the opinion that the Ogg format goes hand in hand with significantly better sound quality. Compared to the MP3 format, there should be clearly fewer losses.

OggEnc 2.88

Wave to OggVorbis conversion

Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

24,92
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

24,99
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

26,60
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

26,89
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

27,07
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

27,15
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

27,85
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

29,17
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

29,60
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

29,65
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

29,78
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

30,68
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

30,90
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

31,09
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

31,94
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

31,96
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

31,98
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

32,03
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

32,20
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

32,38
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

32,54
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

32,86
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

33,27
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

33,28
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

33,34
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

33,47
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

33,67
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

33,72
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

34,46
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

35,37
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

35,49
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

35,60
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

35,72
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

36,60
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

38,36
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

38,70
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

39,79
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

41,12
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

41,75
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

41,94
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

43,14
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

43,35
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

49,08
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

50,28
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

56,83
Seconds [less is better]

image editing

In addition to the benchmarks already shown in the test suites of PCMark 8 and Adobe's Creative Suite 6 Master, we also rely on common programs such as IrfanView and GIMP that are widely used in the private sector.

GIMP

GIMP is a free and free image manipulation program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Similar to the paid Adobe Photoshop, GIMP offers numerous filters and allows intensive image processing. The biggest advantage of the GIMP besides the fact that it is free is the platform independence. So GIMP can be used under Windows, Linux and OS X.

A 9.000 x 9.000 pixel JPEG image is used as a test scenario, on which we first apply a blur filter, then a Gaussian soft focus and finally a red-eye filter. In the version 2.8.8.1 we use, all three filters make only little use of several processor cores.

GIMP 2.8.8.1

Image processing of a 70 MPixel image

Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

11,00
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

12,00
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

12,00
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

12,00
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

12,00
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

12,00
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

13,00
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

13,00
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

13,00
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

14,00
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

14,00
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

14,00
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

14,00
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

14,00
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

14,00
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

14,00
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

15,00
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

15,00
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

15,00
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

15,00
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

16,00
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

16,00
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

16,00
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

16,00
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

17,00
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

17,00
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

17,00
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

17,00
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

18,00
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

18,00
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

19,00
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

19,00
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

19,00
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

20,00
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

21,00
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

23,00
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

24,00
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

24,00
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

27,00
Seconds [less is better]

IrfanView

In contrast to GIMP, IrfanView is more of an image viewer than an image editing program, but it is very popular. Nevertheless, this free software also offers some welcome additional functions such as scaling several images.

We use precisely this function to downscale an image pool with a total of 256 Mbytes of JPEG images to a size of 256 x 156 pixels each. We trust the IrfanView version 4.4.2, which unfortunately still does not support extensive multithreading.

IrfanView 4.4.2

image editing

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

6,73
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

6,95
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

7,19
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

7,41
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

7,60
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

7,83
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

7,85
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

8,00
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

8,03
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

8,13
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

8,19
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

8,24
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

8,36
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

8,36
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

8,39
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

8,39
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

8,40
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

8,45
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

8,46
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

8,58
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

8,61
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

8,64
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

8,92
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

9,04
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

9,07
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

9,26
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

9,50
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

9,50
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

9,56
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

9,64
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

9,92
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

10,02
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

10,07
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

10,14
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

10,35
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

10,52
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

10,72
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

10,84
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

10,96
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

11,30
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

11,35
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

11,83
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

12,06
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

12,92
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

13,11
Seconds [less is better]

video editing

When it comes to video editing, the widespread Handbrake and the x265 benchmark, which use different codecs with different quality settings, are used. The source file is always a 380 MB HD video. While software that has often only made minimal use of several cores has been used so far, MainConcept and Handbrake are two prime examples of parallelization. Even six cores are optimally used.

Handbrake x264

Image: AMD's comeback - Ryzen 7 1800X in the test

HandBrake is a software for converting video files. Originally developed for BeOS, the free program is now available for Linux, OS X and Windows. We are using Handbrake version 0.10.5.0, which makes massive use of several cores as well as SSE commands up to SSE 4.2. H.264 is used as the codec.

We completed two benchmarks with Handbrake. In the first, we convert the above video into an iPod-compatible format of 320 x 176 pixels. In the second, on the other hand, we rely on a Full HD resolution of 1.920 x 1.080 pixels.

Handbrake x264 - 0.10.5.0

Preset: iPod 320 × 176

Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

7,13
Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

7,20
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

7,38
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

8,36
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

8,38
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

8,39
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

8,39
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

8,44
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

8,50
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

8,62
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

8,99
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

8,99
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

9,08
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

9,09
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

9,19
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

9,24
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

9,26
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

9,51
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

9,66
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

9,90
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

10,67
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

10,86
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

11,43
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

11,47
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

11,69
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

11,73
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

11,75
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

12,08
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

12,24
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

12,34
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

12,39
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

12,39
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

12,53
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

13,50
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

13,86
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

13,98
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

14,40
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

14,97
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

16,15
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

16,24
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

18,50
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

18,74
Intel Core i3-3220
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

24,33
Intel Core i3-2120
[2C / 4T @ 3,3 GHz]

25,23
Intel Pentium G4400
[2C / 2T @ 3,3 GHz]

29,08
Seconds [less is better]
Handbrake x264 - 0.10.5.0

Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080

Intel Core i9-7900X
[10C / 20T @ 3,3-4,3 GHz]

61,86
Intel Core i7-6950X
[10C / 20T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

69,31
Intel Core i7-7820X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,3 GHz]

72,86
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz]

75,92
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
[8C / 16T @ 3,6-4,1 GHz - MSI BIOS130]

76,17
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
[8C / 16T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

82,59
Intel Core i7-8700K
[6C / 12T @ 3,7-4,7 GHz]

83,49
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,7 GHz]

86,85
Intel Core i7-6900K
[8C / 16T @ 3,2-3,7 GHz]

88,58
Intel Core i7-5960X
[8C / 16T @ 3,0-3,5 GHz]

90,79
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

100,10
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
[6C / 12T @ 3,2-3,6 GHz]

108,70
Intel Core i7-5930K
[6C / 12T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

111,29
Intel Core i7-4960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,6-4,0 GHz]

114,88
Intel Core i5-8400
[6C / 12T @ 2,8-4,0 GHz]

116,77
Intel Core i7-7740X
[4C / 8T @ 4,3-4,5 GHz]

118,87
Intel Core i7-7700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,2-4,5 GHz]

119,25
Intel Core i7-3960X
[6C / 12T @ 3,3-3,9 GHz]

123,81
Intel Core i7-6700K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

132,85
Intel Core i7-4790K
[4C / 8T @ 4,0-4,4 GHz]

136,83
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
[4C / 8T @ 3,5 @ 3,7 GHz]

152,42
AMD FX-9590
[4M / 8T @ 4,7-5,0 GHz]

152,67
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
[4C / 8T @ 3,6-3,9 GHz]

156,25
Intel Core i7-5775C
[4C / 8T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

164,92
Intel Core i7-4770K
[4C/8T@3-5-3,9 GHz]

171,18
Intel Core i5-7600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,8-4,2 GHz]

175,10
AMD FX-8350
[4M / 8T @ 4,0-4,2 GHz]

176,27
Intel Core i7-4820K
[4C / 4T @ 3,7-3,9 GHz]

177,83
Intel Core i7-3770K
[4C / 8T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

185,56
Intel Core i5-7500
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

186,11
Intel Core i5-6600K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

187,15
Intel Core i5-4690K
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,9 GHz]

187,54
Intel Core i5-4670K
[4C / 4T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

189,25
Intel Core i7-3820
[4C / 4T @ 3,6-3,8 GHz]

190,76
Intel Core i5-5675C
[4C / 4T @ 3,1-3,6 GHz]

202,39
Intel Core i7-2600K
[4C / 8T @ 3,4-3,8 GHz]

210,37
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
[4C / 4T @ 3,5-3,7 GHz]

227,10
Intel Core i3-7350K
[2C / 4T @ 4,2 GHz]

243,42
Intel Core i5-3570K
[4C / 4T3,4-3,8 GHz]

244,13
Intel Core i5-2500K
[4C / 4T @ 3,3-3,7 GHz]

264,28
Intel Core i3-6100
[2C / 4T @ 3,7 GHz]

308,30
Intel Core i5-2300
[4C / 4T @ 2,8-3,1 GHz]

309,38
Intel Core i3-3220