Tom's Hardware Wants You: CPU Tests For 2011
We're looking for a few good suggestions as we revamp our processor testing suite for 2011. Is there something you'd like to see heading into the new year? Here's your chance to make your voice heard!
We’ve had a lot of fun ramping up audience interaction here on Tom’s Hardware—from the contests (it seems like there is always at least one running) to the forums-driven Best Configs section going live this week to the comments and emails we get from every single story that gets published. Keep it coming—and we’ll do the same.
In the meantime, we’re working on our benchmark suites for 2011 (yes, there will be several) and want your input each step of the way.
Currently, I think we have a reasonable mix of gaming-, productivity-, media-, and synthetic-based tests in our automated CPU software package. But it’s hard to know if we’re giving you the performance results you most want to see in the software you most commonly use unless you speak up and let us know.
Now, keep in mind that we’d prefer to use free/trial/open source software, making reproducibility an option for as many of our readers as possible. If it turns out we’re able to lean heavily on widely available titles, it might even be possible to make the suite downloadable, allowing you to run the same tests we run for quick and easy comparison. Understandably, benchmarks that still require a license probably won’t be part of that package.
Here’s our current list of metrics:
- Apple iTunes 10.0.1
- TMPG 4.7 with DivX 6.9.2 and Xvid 1.2.2
- MainConcept Reference 2.0
- HandBrake 0.9.4
- Autodesk 3ds Max 2010
- WinRAR 3.92
- 7-Zip 4.65
- Adobe Photoshop CS5
- AVG Anti-Virus 11.0
- 3DMark Vantage
- PCMark Vantage
- SiSoftware Sandra 2010
- Metro 2033
- Just Cause 2
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
- DiRT 2
Occasionally you’ll see us swap out a game, exclude AVG, or add something like Fritz, but that’s the lineup I’m using as of…well, now. So, give us some suggestions on what you’d like to see in 2011. Bear in mind that the apps we use will likely be the ones most applicable to the largest number of people, though there is room for a handful of more fringe tests, too.
As we revamp other aspects of testing—from graphics card measurements to workstation and mobile suites, I’ll ask for your input first, as our team in Germany sets out to automate as much of what we do as possible.
Thanks again for the input. I’ll be stopping by the comments section here, of course. And if you want to reach me directly, I swear I’m trying to get better about interacting with Twitter. I’m even planning to give away some hardware there...
Chris Angelini
Managing Editor, Tom’s Hardware
The source games are well-known to be CPU bound, and include dozens of titles, so I feel a test with one of them would be justified.
I'd also like to see your benchmarks include at least some last-gen CPUs in order to help those on older hardware consider upgrades. For example, when SB comes out, I would expect an i7-980X, 9X0, i5-7X0, an AMD 1055t, and an AMD quad (what most tech sites use), but I would also love to see you include a Q6600/E8400 for those still kicking on LGA775.
In the late game 2000AD+ I usually run about 30 seconds between turns but i've heard people reaching 2 minutes and over.
It's still one of the more challenging games to run on even a modern rig...
It's still one of the more challenging games to run on even a modern rig...
In the late game 2000AD+ I usually run about 30 seconds between turns but i've heard people reaching 2 minutes and over.
I'm tired of all the whiners with dual-cores complaining about bad performance in that game.
as we always say "Can it play Crysis"
In its place, I'd like to see an encoding program that can fully thread itself. I can't name one off top of my head (2:40am) but I know there are some out there.
Add BC2, Starcraft 2 and Civ V and the games section would be good to go.
The other software benchmarks are pretty good already, I'd like AutoCAD but that's just me.
i.e. Bethesda games like Oblivion and Dragon Age come to mind.
I would like to see games grouped (and listed in smaller print) into classes, like those that tax CPUs heavily, those that are very heavy on shader use, etc.
I would like a corresponding list of games within that group. For example, "Games heavy on shaders".
Some cards do a lot better for AA than others as well, and some games require more AA to look good than others. If there's some way to group these types of things for us it would be highly beneficial when we are making selections on what to purchase or play with our computers.
Will a 256mb card work for a game like Oblivion? Probably not. But that's really what gamers need to know. Is their system in need of a better video card, CPU, or more memory? Or is the whole thing too slow to realistic work with a game/application.
The same thing could be done for games that require a fast CPU. Some modern games will still run on a 2.0ghz Athlon 64. It would be beneficial and save us money if we are a looking for games that we can still play on our systems without having to upgrade.