SYSmark, WebXPRT, 7-zip
SYSmark 2014 SE
SYSmark® 2014 SE (Second Edition) is an application-based benchmark that reflects usage patterns of business users in the areas of Office Productivity, Data/Financial Analysis and Media Creation. Joining these in SYSmark 2014 SE is a new Responsiveness scenario which models ‘pain points’ in the user experience when performing common activities. SYSmark 2014 SE features the most popular applications from each of their respective fields.
In the overall score the Ryzen 5 2400G is slower than the Core i3-8100 despite having double the thread count. SYSmark continues to put a heavey emphasis on the responsive sub-set and score, and that in turn is very susceptible to clock frequency jumps and changes. In all of the tests, the 2400G outperforms the Ryzen 5 1400, and the 2200G does the same against the Ryzen 3 1200. That's a good sign – and indicates that AMD is improving the Ryzen platform with higher clocks and a better Precision Boost 2 implementation.
WebXPRT
WebXPRT 2015 uses scenarios created to mirror the tasks you do every day to compare the performance of almost any Web-enabled device. It contains six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workloads: Photo Enhancement, Organize Album, Stock Option Pricing, Local Notes, Sales Graphs, and Explore DNA Sequencing.
It runs these four tests seven times each:
- Photo Enhancement: Measures the time to apply three effects (Sharpen, Emboss, and Glow) to two photos each, a set of six photos total.
- Organize Album: Measures the time it takes to check for human faces in a set of five photos.
- Stocks Option Pricing: Measures the time to calculate financial indicators of a stock based on historical data and display the result in a dashboard.
- Local Notes: Measures the time to store notes securely in the browser's local storage and display recent entries.
- Sales Graphs: Measures the time to calculate and display multiple views of sales data.
- Explore DNA Sequencing: Measures the time it takes to filter eight DNA sequences for specific characteristics.
Each test uses different combinations of HTML5 Canvas 2D and Javascript, common elements in many Web pages, to gauge how well your device and browser work together in everyday Web browsing situations.
The WebXPRT results are another set of tests that paint the Core i3-8100 and i5-8400 in a better light than expected, with both outpacing the Ryzen 5 2400G.
7-Zip Compression
Our 7-Zip tests show strong performances from both of the new Ryzen processors though we still find that that 2400G compares closer to the Core i3-8100 than the Core i5-8400.
How hard would it have been
How hard would it have been to include 2 extra data points on each graph for the APU’s tested at 2400 and also at max RAM speed?
To not include it in the initial launch review is doing a disservice to anyone reading your review interested in the new APUs.
Yes, please do this soon! I
Yes, please do this soon! I am buying a 2200G soon and I will be pairing it with a 3200MHz kit. Can you also please look what impact the size of the frame bufer has like J2c did?
Never mind on the frame
Never mind on the frame buffer. I was basing my request on a Jayztwocents video, but it turns out he was a bit more drama than data. Hardware Unboxed did a very comprehensive review of frame buffer impacts and found it negligible.
Good review! I know that
Good review! I know that traditionally you guys don’t go through the full FCAT routine with your cpu reviews, but I would have loved to see that for the integrated graphics on this one. Minimum frame rate would be good too.
Great review thanks.
On the
Great review thanks.
On the part about chosen memory speed & using 2400MHz memory speed. First off most would at least try to get 2933Mhz memory and then try to OC it to 3200Mhz using 2400Mhz just seems like a lot of wasted performance potential. If the board & CPU/APU support it and the kit was provided at that speed then set the system up with those specs please to not gimp the system just because 10% of the buyers may opt to use slower memory to save a few bucks. Like you said it is not AMD’s fault the prices are out to lunch so why gimp their hardware to make a point. By the way all of Intel’s coffee lakes the non K versions were all tested on the highest end chipset the z370 and with memory speeds at 3200Mhz or above. Only because Intel chose to hold back the lower end chip sets for the CPU’s fully knowing the lower spec CPU’s would be tested on boards that allow for memory overclocking which also gave the lower spec CPU’s a big performance boost.
When the lower tier chip sets come out all of the data done in testing on 95% of the sites just becomes useless because these lower tier chips will now be bought with the lower end boards that do not allow over clocking of any kind. My point is AMD gave/sent you a review kit that yes will allow the kit to perform at it’s best but the hardware actually supports everything in the kit sent out for reviews at least they were not trying to fake the numbers like Intel pretty much did with non K Coffee lakes CPU’s by allowing reviews to be done on hardware that will not be put together as a kit once the non OC chip sets are released for the non OC CPU’s. The point is test the hardware sent out and at least try to set the hardware up so it shows what it’s full performance potential is not gimping it because a few may not buy the higher spec memory for it.
Hello second post for
Hello second post for this
“This clearly proves out AMD’s case that changes to the Precision Boost 2 technology can help with gaming performance, but the IPC advantages Intel holds remain the difference.”
It is not so much the IPC gain Intel has over AMD (which is only 5%-6% by the way) but more so the actual clock speed advantage Intel has over AMD right now oh & in the i5 case 2 extra cores over the AMD 4/8 setup as well. Those 2 extra cores more than make up the 8 threads the 2400G has because they are hardware cores not logical cores as not physical cores. My best guess is if you could take a AMD Ryzen APU and pit it up against a Intel part with same core count and had the clock rates setup at the same speed Intel would only behead by 5%-6% because of slightly better IPC on the Intel parts. But hey it is good to see intel’s Coffee lake 6th gen CPU’s doing so well oh wait that’s 8th gen nope wrong 6th gen because they are sky lake cores just a few more added to the mix pretty sad really when my Old Sandy Bridge i7 OC’ed to 5Ghz is faster than a 6700K stock and gets near or passes a 7700K which is 7th gen and mine is second gen core series. Pretty sad also that a second gen can clock as high or faster than a 3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th gen class CPU’s and run cooler while doing it even though it is on a lot bigger node process.
I do have to admit the 6th/8th gen Coffee lakes do seems to finally OC a bit better with some of them reaching 5.3-5.4Ghz with good cooling. My CPU only dreams of getting to 5.3GHz not alone 5.4GHz but I have had it at 5.2GHz for benching and it will run 24/7 stable at 5.1GHz so yep sad that a old 2010 or is it 2011 CPU is able to still play with the big boys and show them that Grand dad still has a few tricks up it’s sleeve.
Does anyone know if any of
Does anyone know if any of the major PC manufacturers are going to put these APU’s in the computers they sell?
Hey, just learned AMD will
Hey, just learned AMD will loan out a old CPU to do an bios upgrade that is needed on a lot of newer low cost motherboards.
I was running cpu-z or some
I was running cpu-z or some benchmark and my 2200G with the larger wraith cooler, the xfr jumped up to 4.125. A 400MHz jump ain’t bad and is up there with a 1300X.
Very interesting article. The
Very interesting article. The R5-2400g is not intended to compete with the I5-8400. The discreet tests should probably have included the R5-1600.
The moral is simple. If you need integrated graphics, then the R5-2400g is obviously far superior to Intel. If you need discrete graphics, then the R5-1600 is a great competitor to the I5-8400, at the SAME EXACT PRICE.
Hey paper question reguarding
Hey paper question reguarding down/spect intel vs amd (down/spect is was chosen by Steve Gibson among the huge pile he received )anyway from what www say , it look like I got cheated ! Every place online was saying intel was better when in fact bang for $ amd was the king of the hill ! My question ! You guys used to do article with link when you didn’t do them directly I know w going back in the past is a Nono but could you confirm performance lost from r a série , like the sandy bridge say i5 2500 k
Just the performance lost is good , it like ok like web say 30 %.but since I know you test very differently I suspect it must be a different ! Why I ask ? Tired of having excuse from intel! People paid way more for intel unit and the whole point was to get the best people can afford! Steve Gibson hinted that a lot of intel processor might loose performance or security reguardless of what google say (Microcode and all that) he was suggesting for people wait till the dust settle ! Till the dust settle can you look into down/spect intel vs amd and see the performance drop! Since I mainly talk about gaming keeping it simple is good enough
Wow Ryan, your skimping
Wow Ryan, your skimping lately, just let Josh do amd, you are not even showing its OC potential. What happen to u? 😉