To estimate the average performance of our today’s testing participants we used a new Futuremark PCMark 8 benchmark. It uses three testing scenarios: Home, Work and Creative, and all three are part of our today’s test session. I would like to point out that Futuremark implemented a number of heterogeneous algorithms in their benchmarking utility, which can utilize the potential of the integrated graphics cores for calculations via OpenCL. We do not disable this feature deliberately during our test session.
The next diagram shows one of the intermediate scores from Futuremark 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark – Physics Score. This score shows how fast the system can complete a special gaming physics test that emulates the behavior of a complex system with a large number of objects in it.
To test the platform performance in office tasks we resorted to a special test script from Futuremark that emulates the user’s typical action in Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft Excel 2010 and Microsoft PowerPoint 2010.
The performance in Internet applications was tested using Futuremark Peacekeeper browser benchmark that employs all latest resource-consuming web-technologies. We launched this benchmark in Google Chrome 27 browser.
To test the processors performance during data archiving we resort to WinRAR 5.0 archiving utility. Using maximum compression rate we archive a folder with multiple files with 1.1 GB total size. The following chart shows the time it took to complete in seconds.
We use special Cinebench 11.5 benchmark to test final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D engine from the professional suite.
In order to measure how fast our testing participants can transcode a video into H.264 format we used x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64 bit). It works with an original MPEG-4/AVC video recorded in 1920x1080@50fps resolution with 30 Mbps bitrate. I have to say that the results of this test are of great practical value, because the x264 codec is also part of numerous popular transcoding utilities, such as HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.
We benchmark CPUs in Adobe Photoshop CS6 using our custom test script. The results on the diagram represent the time it takes to complete this test in seconds.
On average, all benchmarks that target general purpose performance of the processor cores, show that A10-6800K is only 5% faster than A10-5800K. It illustrates perfectly the fact that there are no microarhictectural improvements in the computing part of the APU. The performance improvement that we see in the new Socket FM2 APUs based on Richland design is directly connected with the increase in their clock frequency.
Overall, we can say the same thing about the performance of the new A10-6800K processors in traditional general-purpose applications as we said before. Piledriver microarchitecture is not very efficient with low-threaded processor load therefore, if the tasks do not generate numerous parallel processes, A10-6800K falls behind Core i3 and Core i5 from Ivy Bridge generation. AMD APU can only break this pattern in two completely different cases. It should either be in case of low-threaded load, where quad-core A10-6800K can outperform at least he dual-core Core i3-3225, or in applications where some of the calculations can be relayed to the graphics core. In this group of benchmarks it will be PCMark 8, therefore, Richland gets ahead of Core i3-3225 as well as Core i5-3330 in some of its testing scenarios.