Professional Performance: Windows

Agisoft PhotoScan – 2D to 3D Image Manipulation: link

Agisoft PhotoScan creates 3D models from 2D images — a process that is very computationally expensive. The algorithm is split into four distinct phases, and different phases of the model reconstruction require either fast memory, fast IPC, more cores, or even OpenCL compute devices to achieve the best performance. Agisoft supplied us with a special version of the software to script the process, where we take 50 images of a stately home and convert it into a medium-quality model. This benchmark typically takes around 15 to 20 minutes on a high-end PC on the CPU alone, with GPUs reducing the time.

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Total Time

PhotoScan shows most APUs performing around 41 to 42 minutes, which suggests that there is a bottleneck in the core design.

Cinebench R15

Cinebench is a benchmark based around Cinema 4D, and is fairly well known among enthusiasts for stressing the CPU for a provided workload. Results are given as a score, where higher is better.

Cinebench R15 - Single Threaded

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded

HandBrake v0.9.9: link

For HandBrake, we take a video (a 2h20 640x266 DVD rip) and convert it to x264 format in an MP4 container.  Results are given in terms of the frames per second processed, and HandBrake uses as many threads as possible.

HandBrake v0.9.9 LQ Film

Office and Web Performance Gaming Benchmarks: Integrated, R7 240 DDR3 and Dual Graphics
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Archetype - Wednesday, December 9, 2015 - link

    As far as processors are concerned. AMD needs a few crowd-pleasers again. Although I personally will always appreciate that they push some important boundaries in PC technology - Very often at no gain to themselves since they like to promote open standards - They will need to build up good will through good value and performance - Somewhere between mainstream and enthusiast. Would not hurt to shine a bit in the enthusiast market either.
  • syryquil1 - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    Rip you I guess.
  • silverblue - Wednesday, November 18, 2015 - link

    I don't see how it'd be too difficult for AMD to get that 40%; K10 and Bulldozer both had bottlenecks that have since been identified. As for single threaded performance, wouldn't i3 be similar to i7?
  • KAlmquist - Wednesday, November 18, 2015 - link

    AMD's target is a 40% IPC improvement over Excavator, not over K10 or Bulldozer.
  • silverblue - Wednesday, November 18, 2015 - link

    I know; I was referring to Bulldozer in terms of the architectural family. Excavator may be much improved, but it's still Bulldozer in the end.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, November 18, 2015 - link

    No, i3's aren't similar to i7s single-threaded because i7s have more cache and in most cases higher clock speeds (except the U-series where the i3,i5 and i7 distinctions don't really exist).
  • silverblue - Wednesday, November 18, 2015 - link

    There ARE highly clocked i3s out there, so a comparison can certainly be made at the same clock speed. Cache will make a difference but not a huge one.

    The i3 has a higher base clock, sure, but lacks turbo, which helps propel the i7 to 3.9GHz. I know, it's not a like-for-like comparison, but that i3 can certainly hold its own at gaming and single-threading in general.
  • gamervivek - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link

    For some reason AMD GPUs performance suffers on i3 while is alright with i5. See the single threaded draw call results here, where the i5 can do 60% more draw calls.
  • medi03 - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link

    4 cores vs 2 dude
  • BurntMyBacon - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link

    @media: "4 cores vs 2 dude"

    In response to the OP which included this statement:

    @gamervivek: "See the single threaded draw call results here, where the i5 can do 60% more draw calls."

    Am I missing something here?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now