2D & 3D Workstation Performance
2D Workstation Performance
Our GDI/GDI+ tests are used to test two different output methods that can be found in older applications and printing tasks. Today, they, or at least a modified version of them, are commonly used to display the graphical user interface (GUI). They are also great benchmarks for direct device write throughput and memory performance when handling gigantic device-independent bitmap (DIB) files.
Tom’s Hardware Synthetic 2D Benchmarks
We take a look at direct device write throughput first. There hasn’t been true 2D hardware acceleration since the introduction of the unified shader architecture, and Microsoft's Windows driver model complicates 2D hardware acceleration as well.
The graphics test is lightly threaded, so AMD's Threadripper processors struggle while Intel's Core i7-7700K enjoys a massive advantage.
Next, we generate the graphics output in memory, using the only remaining 2D hardware function. The benchmark is the same as before, but we instead plot a bitmap in memory rather than send the information directly to the monitor. The bitmap is only copied once it's complete. This pushes the CPUs, since they’re no longer platform-bound.
Ryzen Threadripper processors dominate the field, with AMD's 1920X landing in first place.
AutoCAD 2016 (2D)
The AutoCAD 2D benchmark doesn't scale well with additional cores. That shifts the focus to IPC throughput, where Intel's processors shine.
Surprisingly, Ryzen 7 1800X beats the tuned Threadripper 1920X. Die-to-die latency may come into play during this test.
3D Workstation Performance
Most professional development applications have been optimized and compiled with Intel CPUs in mind. This is reflected in their performance numbers. Still, we include them in order to motivate developers to focus their efforts on AMD’s Ryzen processors as well. This would give users more than one choice. The same goes for an emphasis on multi-core processors, at least where that’s feasible and makes sense.
AutoCAD 2016 (3D)
AMD’s Ryzen family lands within a narrow range during this frequency-sensitive application. The Core i7-7700K takes an easy lead, and the -7820X's second-place finish confirms that the workload isn't optimized for parallelism. In fact, AutoCAD’s performance resembles older games because it uses DirectX and doesn't leverage multiple cores effectively.
Cinebench R15 OpenGL
Clock rate tends to influence the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark results most. Our numbers indicate that the application could benefit from Ryzen-specific optimizations.
SolidWorks 2015 tells a similar tale. Even an overclocked Ryzen Threadripper 1920X loses to Ryzen 7 1800X. Switching to NUMA mode could help improve Threadripper's placement, but that'd also have an impact on other applications. You'll have to choose the settings that yield the best experience or face a steady stream of reboots to optimize AMD's platform for whatever you're running at the moment.
The 1920X's lead over the 1950X tells us that frequency is more important than core count during this benchmark.
Moreover, Ryzen 7 1800X's performance advantage over the Threadripper processors suggests the unique MCM design can be problematic in some workloads. Optimized BIOS settings could push those processors up in our field, but they'd also negatively impact Creo's CPU composite score.
Blender (Real-time 3D Preview)
Threadripper's Blender benchmark results are acceptable for a high-end processor, but the -7700K is a fly in the ointment for both Intel's and AMD's priciest chips. The overclocked 1920X leads AMD's line-up, illustrating the advantages of extra clock rate in workloads not well-optimized for high core counts. Given the great rendering results you'll see on the next page, Threadripper 1920X provides a potent balance of performance in all types of applications.
Catia V6 R2012
This graphics benchmark is well-optimized (it’s part of the free SPECviewperf 12 suite, after all). We can see that frequency is particularly important in determining performance.
Maya 2013 also leans heavily on clock rate. But you have to remember that real-time 3D output benchmarks don’t tell the whole story. AMD’s Threadripper processors are much more competitive during final rendering, which we'll cover on the next page.
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: All CPUs Content