Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(161) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Application Tests

In Autodesk 3ds max 2015 we benchmark the speed of mental ray rendering of a complex 3D scene consisting of about 2200 objects with 13 light sources.

Final rendering can be easily done on multiple CPU cores in parallel. That's why Turbo Boost isn't effective here and the energy-efficient processors work at their minimum clock rate most of the time. You can see the outcome in the diagram: the Core i5-4670S is in between the Core i5-4590 and i5-4460 whereas the Core i5-4670T is the slowest quad-core processor in this test, falling more than 10% behind the Core i5-4460.

We benchmark performance in Adobe Photoshop CC using our custom test that is based on the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test and consists of typical processing of four 24-megapixel images captured with a digital camera.

Photoshop produces a somewhat different picture because it is not all about multithreaded loads. That’s why the energy-efficient quad-core processors look a little better here, yet still cannot match the regular model of the same price, Core i5-4670. The Core i5-4670S is 3.5% slower than its 84-watt cousin while the Core i5-4670T falls behind by as much as 15%.

To check out web application performance, we use Internet Explorer 11 and the WebXPRT 2013 benchmark which executes fragments of real-life HTML5 and JavaScript code.

Web browsers are mostly single-threaded applications, so Turbo Boost is most welcome here. It is no wonder then that the 65-watt Core i5-4670S is close to the 84-watt Core i5-4670 whereas the Core i5-4670T is ahead of the Core i5-4460. The dual-core i3-4360 looks very good here, just like in the office applications, because it comes with a rather high clock rate without any auto-overclock technologies.

To test the processors’ performance at data archiving we launch WinRAR 5.0. Using maximum compression rate, we archive a 1.7GB folder with multiple files.

When compressing data with WinRAR, the 65-watt Core i5-4670S and the 45-watt Core i5-4670T are 5% and 13%, respectively, slower than the Core i5-4670. Energy efficiency doesn’t come cheap. It always comes with the downside of lower performance, especially in heavy applications which can make use of all CPU cores in parallel.

In order to measure how fast the tested CPUs can transcode video into H.264 format we used x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64 bit). It measures the time it takes the x264 coder to convert an MPEG-4/AVC video recorded in 1920x1080@50fps resolution with default settings. The results have high practical value because the x264 codec is part of popular transcoding utilities such as HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc. We regularly update the coder used in this performance test. This time around, we use version r2431 which supports all contemporary instruction sets including AVX2.

We’ve got a typical picture in this test: the Core i5-4670S is in between the Core i5-4590 and Core i5-4460 whereas the Core i5-4670T is slower in performance than any of the 84-watt quad-core models.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 161
Discussion started: 08/16/14 10:30:16 AM
Latest comment: 01/04/17 10:02:47 AM

View comments

Add your Comment