Testing configuration and methodology
Now, as we have discussed in detail about
the involved processors, it's time to conduct real platform test . The list
below shows all the software and hardware components that we use in today's
examination:
·
Processor: AMD A10-5800K (Trinity, 4 cores,
3.8-4.2 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 7660D); AMD A10-5700 (Trinity, 4 cores, 3.4-4.0
GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 7660D); AMD A8-5600K (Trinity, 4 cores, 3.6-3.9 GHz, 4
MB L2, Radeon HD 7560D); AMD A8-5500 (Trinity, 4 cores, 3.2-3.7 GHz, 4 MB L2,
Radeon HD 7560D); AMD A6-5400K (Trinity, 2 cores, 3.6-3.8 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon
HD 7540D); AMD A4-5300 (Trinity, 2 cores, 3.4-3.6 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon HD
7480D); Intel Core i3-3225 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD
Graphics 4000); Intel Core i3-3220 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3,
HD Graphics 2500); Intel Pentium G2120 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores, 3.1 GHz, 3 MB L3,
HD Graphics); Intel Pentium G2020 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores, 3.1 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD
Graphics); Intel Celeron G1620 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores, 2.7 GHz, 2 MB L3, HD
Graphics)
·
Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel
Z77 Express); ASUS F2A85-V Pro (Socket FM2, AMD A85)
·
Memory module: 2 x 4 GB, DDR3-1866 SDRAM,
9-11-9-27 (Kingston KHX1866C9D3K2/8GX)
·
Sub-system drive: Intel SSD 520 240 GB
(SSDSC2CW240A3K5)
·
Power supply: Corsair AX760i (80 Plus Platinum,
760 W)
·
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise
x64
·
Control panel: AMD Catalyst 13.1 Driver; AMD Chipset
Driver 13.1; Intel Chipset Driver 9.3.0.1026; Intel Graphics Media Accelerator
Driver 15.28.12.64.2932; Intel Management Engine Driver 8.1.0.1286; Intel Rapid
Storage Technology 11.7.0.1013
As the foremost
goal of this test is to compare the performance of integrated processors as a
single heterogeneous system, all tests were conducted without dedicated
graphics. The graphics core is solely responsible for displaying images on the
screen.
And before we move on to the results, we
want to remind you of the relative positioning of all above discussed APUs
according to their price:
·
AMD A10-5800K: $122
·
AMD A10-5700: $122
·
AMD A8-5600K: $101
·
AMD A8-5500: $101
·
AMD A6-5400K: $67
·
AMD A4-5300K: $47
·
Core i3-3225: $134
·
Core i3-3220: $117
·
Pentium G2120: $75
·
Pentium G2020: $64
·
Celeron G1620: $52
Computing performance
In the first part of the experiment we will
focus on conventional computing. It is the performance provided by the
processor’s x86 cores.
General
performance
As usual we use the Bapco SYSmark 2012 set to estimate the performance of the processor
in general purpose tasks. It emulates the usage models in popular office and
digital content creation and processing applications. The idea behind this test
is quite simple: it creates a single score characterizing the average computer
performance. After the arrival of Windows 8, SYSmark 2012 is updated to version
1.5, and this is the version we are using in this test.
Sysmark
2012 version 1.5
We know every place in the Ivy Bridge and
modern Piledriver microarchitecture good enough, so the product stand point in
the graph does not suprise us. Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs with Hyper-Threading
support are often faster than the Piledriver modules of the APU AMD , so that
the Core i3 series take the lead. However, Intel's dual-core CPUs without
Hyper-Threading are significantly slower. They are comparable in performance to
the quad-core Trinity A8 and A10 APUs. As with the junior APU of AMD that only
has a Piledriver modules inside, A6 and A4 series are very weak in terms of
general-purpose tasks, being inferior even to the Intel Celeron series.
There is only one particular point on the
corresponding performance of AMD products. The A8-5600K processor has a higher
SYSmark 2012 score than the A10-5700, a higher-class model. Why? Because the
A8-5600K with 100W TDP is designed to run at higher clock frequencies. As for
the A10-5700, its positioning in the senior series does not reflect its
computing performance but is due to its full-featured graphics core with the
maximum number of shader processors. Therefore, if you only interested in
computing performance, the A8-5600K would be more appropriate than the
A10-5700.
Let's take a closer look SYSmark 2012
performance scores generated in different usage scenarios. Office Productivity
scenario emulates typical office tasks, such as text editing, electronic table
processing, email and web surfing. This scenario uses the following
applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Flash
Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft
Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word 2010 và WinZip Pro 14.5
Office
Productivity scenario
Media Creation scenario emulates the
creation of a video clip using previously taken digital images and videos. Here
they use the famous Adobe suites: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and
After Effects CS5.
Media
Creation scenario emulates the creation of a video clip
Web Development is a scenario emulating
web-site designing. It uses the following applications: Adobe Photoshop CS5
Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8
và Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.
Web
Development is a scenario emulating web-site designing.
Data / Financial Analysis scenario is used
for statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends performed in
Microsoft Excel 2010.
Data
/ Financial Analysis scenario
3D Modeling scenario is fully dedicated to
3D objects and rendering of static and dynamic scenes using Adobe Photoshop CS5
Extended, Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Autodesk AutoCAD 2011 and Google SketchUp Pro
8.
3D
Modeling scenario is fully dedicated to 3D objects and rendering of static
scenes
The last scenario is called Management
System creates backups and installs software and updates It consists of a few
different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5.
The
last scenario is called Management System creates backups and installs software
and updates
The particular type of load has a
considerable effect on the relative performance of the products we’re
discussing here. There are only two scenarios in which the scores are perfectly
fitted with the overall scores: office work and media content processing. Here,
the quad-core A10 and A8 APUs can be compared with the Intel Pentium and
Celeron. In rendering tasks and research data which can be easily implemented
in parallel on multi-core performance, the Socket FM2 APU performs the best.
Although we can not achieve as Core i3, the quad-core A8 and A10 APUs are
better than the Pentium and Celeron. AMD's APUs are also good in case of system
maintenance: computing products are similar to each other, A4 and A6 APUs
series are even being cable to beat Intel’s Celeron.
