• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Futuremark PCMark 10

VSG

Editor, Reviews & News
Staff member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,213 (0.62/day)
PCMark 10 is the latest iteration of Futuremark's popular full system benchmarking suite. It supports Windows 10 and runs quicker and more efficiently than the previous version. Futuremark also updated the tests to better reflect real world scenarios used by office and home professionals alike, including digital content creation, a new gaming test group, and 3D modeling/simulations.

Show full review
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SARVAMANGALAM

New Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
23 (0.03/day)
  • No support for more than a thread/CPU core and more than a GPU ... can you explain more this...?? for 30 hmm
 

VSG

Editor, Reviews & News
Staff member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,213 (0.62/day)
  • No support for more than a thread/CPU core and more than a GPU ... can you explain more this...?? for 30 hmm
The test programs use only one thread per core upto however many cores are supported, and similarly only one GPU. I am not sure what else to say :)
 

VSG

Editor, Reviews & News
Staff member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,213 (0.62/day)
It doesnt support HT/SMT.. but will scale with logic cores. :)
Yes, and here too up to however many each program will make use of. Video conferencing, for example, won't make use of 8 cores.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
6,583 (1.53/day)
Location
S.E. Virginia
System Name Barb's Domain/Barb's Cruncher#2
Processor i7 3930k@4.2ghz/i7 860 @ 3.3ghz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition/Gigabyte P55-UD3R
Cooling Deep Cool Assassin/Corsair A50
Memory 16gig DDR3 1600/4gig DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) GTX 1070 /MSI HD7770
Storage 500GB WD Blue SSD, 2TB Seagate Hybrid SSHD/ WD Caviar Blue 160gb
Display(s) HP ZR30W 30" 2560*1600/SOYO Topaz S 24" 1920*1200
Case SilverStone Fortress FT04/NZXT Source 210 Black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z533
Power Supply XFX 750W XXX edition/PC Power Cooling Turbo Cool 860
Mouse Logitect G5
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit /Windows 7 Ult 64 bit
Benchmark Scores https://www.3dmark.com/fs/14508101
so basically it will score CPUs based on how many cores they have, not how many threads it has? So a 4c/8t i7 7700k at 4.5GHz will score the same as a 4c/4t i5 7600k at 4.5GHz?
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
451 (0.19/day)
I wonder how much AMD paid to Futumark to skew the results towards CPUs with more cores. Compare these two results:


@W1zzard Also the bars are not to scale.

And the final scores:


I'm sorry but for 95% of people out there the last four tests are meaningless, while they actually power on their PCs and launch applications every day.
 

VSG

Editor, Reviews & News
Staff member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
1,213 (0.62/day)
so basically it will score CPUs based on how many cores they have, not how many threads it has? So a 4c/8t i7 7700k at 4.5GHz will score the same as a 4c/4t i5 7600k at 4.5GHz?
Yes, and that is more to do with the test programs which in turn are actual real-work programs people use. So it says more about the state of applications today than anything else.

@birdie : These are as vendor neutral as can be. You will see that in upcoming hardware reviews that use these benchmarks. It's also funny since a lot of the earlier tests do not use more than 2-4 cores anyway, so the Ryzen system is not getting any advantage in the tests you mentioned were more useful. As for scale, each individual chart scales itself based on the max and min values.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
28 (0.02/day)
System Name "Loft pc"
Processor TR 1950x
Motherboard Asus Rog Zenith Extreme
Cooling Notua-TR4-SP3
Memory 32 GB ddr4
Video Card(s) Vega 64 Liquid
Storage 1x Samsung 960 PRO 512; 1x WD 1 TB; 2x WD 4 TB
Display(s) AOC 32" UHD
Case CM Stacker
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar DX
Power Supply Corsair AX 1200
Mouse Razer Lachesis
Keyboard Logitech G19
Software Windows 10 64
Benchmark Scores Benchmark useless. Doing math: x cpu (or gpu) at x clock = x score
I don't ever more use bench from Aquamark 3...
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
786 (0.18/day)
Location
Montreal
System Name Ryzen / Sairikiki / Tesseract
Processor 3600 / i7 920@3.73 / i5 4690k@4.2
Motherboard Steel Legend B450M / GB EX58-UDP4 / GB Z97MX-G5
Cooling Mugen 5 / Pure Rock / LQ-310
Memory Corsair Something 16 / Corsair Something 12 / Corsair 16
Video Card(s) Devil Vega 56 / Devil 480 / Aorus 580
Storage Way too many drives...
Display(s) AOC Q3279VWFD8 @ 40-75Hz / something / Sony w800b
Case EVOLV / AzzA 1000 / Carbide 240
Audio Device(s) Auzen Forte / board / Yamaha RX-V475 + Pioneer AJ
Power Supply EVGA 750P2 / Corsair HX750 / Dark Power PRO10
Mouse G700
Keyboard G910
Software w10 64
Benchmark Scores I don't play benchmarks...
I wonder how much AMD paid to Futumark to skew the results towards CPUs with more cores.
They paid nothing. Everyone knows AMD only cares about Cinebench.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
523 (0.15/day)
Location
Michigan
System Name Daves
Processor AMD Ryzen 1700 @ 4.00
Motherboard AsRock X370 Killer SLI/ac
Cooling Corsair H110i
Memory 16 GIG GSKILL Ripjaw @ 2400
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1070 G1
Storage Crucial M.2 250 Samsung 840 EVO 250-Samsung 850 Pro-WD 1 TB
Display(s) LG 27
Case NZXT
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply EVGA 750
Mouse EVGA
Keyboard Corsair Strafe
Software Windows 10 Home
I wonder how much AMD paid to Futumark to skew the results towards CPUs with more cores. Compare these two results:


@W1zzard Also the bars are not to scale.

And the final scores:


I'm sorry but for 95% of people out there the last four tests are meaningless, while they actually power on their PCs and launch applications every day.
Oh well yeah, this surely proves it.. Right?
:kookoo:
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,255 (5.43/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
I wonder how much AMD paid to Futumark to skew the results towards CPUs with more cores. Compare these two results:


@W1zzard Also the bars are not to scale.

And the final scores:


I'm sorry but for 95% of people out there the last four tests are meaningless, while they actually power on their PCs and launch applications every day.
95% of the people have the Celeron-class CPU in some form or another.

So that problem just solved itself. As for the rest of your comment, well, others have said it before me. This is what bench runs look like when Intel sits on its ass for five years progressing nothing. If anyone is to blame for core/thread performance scaling, its Intel.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
451 (0.19/day)
>80% of tasks out there are single threaded where IPC performance is paramount but you can imagine whatever you want. There are too many rabid fanboys nowadays and very little rational thinking. AMD has introduced lots of cores and suddenly IPC performance has lost its relevance. What a load of utter BS.

While for most users out there the last four test are practically meaningless, still let's inflate multicore CPUs scores just because Intel has stagnated. What a load of pure horseshat.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,255 (5.43/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
>80% of tasks out there are single threaded where IPC performance is paramount but you can imagine whatever you want. There are too many rabid fanboys nowadays and very little rational thinking. AMD has introduced lots of cores and suddenly IPC performance has lost its relevance. What a load of utter BS.

While for most users out there the last four test are practically meaningless, still let's inflate multicore CPUs scores just because Intel has stagnated. What a load of pure horseshat.
With Ryzen being largely on-par with Intel's IPC, how is this still an argument in the first place?
Ryzen simply has more cores at reasonable prices, it is what it is, and it will only show an advantage when more cores are in use. So explain to us again how IPC is not weighted in this benchmark? Intel still gets very close to Ryzen, and when Ryzen is forced to use one core, it doesn't fall apart either.

And wouldn't it make sense to run this bench and find the CPU that excels on your use case anyway? If you just take the total scores and only look at those, that's hardly good research.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
451 (0.19/day)
Ryzen is not on par with Intel CPUs in regard to IPC. It has a very high AES encryption/decryption throughput but other than that it loses by a large margin even to Sandy Bridge CPUs.

My six years old Intel Core i5 2500 (non-K, i.e. stock frequencies) vs Ryzen 7 1700: Geekbench 4.1 - pure embarrassment.https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/2979799?baseline=3060943

AMD fanboys must be smoking some very strong stuff to claim that Ryzen is somewhere near Intel CPUs in regard to IPC. At best they are competing with the Westmere architecture from 2010. Yeah, suddenly AMD has reached the performance level of 7 years old Intel architecture.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
7,165 (3.86/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name Black Box
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2680 10c/20t 2.8GHz @ 3.0GHz
Motherboard Asrock X79 Extreme 11
Cooling Coolermaster 240 RGB A.I.O.
Memory G. Skill 16Gb (4x4Gb) 2133Mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 710
Storage Sandisk X 400 256Gb
Display(s) AOC 22" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Case Corsair 450D High Air Flow.
Audio Device(s) No need.
Power Supply FSP Aurum 650W
Mouse Yes
Keyboard Of course
Software W10 Home Premium 64 bit
Ryzen is not on par with Intel CPUs in regard to IPC. It has a very high AES encryption/decryption throughput but other than that it loses by a large margin even to Sandy Bridge CPUs.
Are you reading that chart backwards o_O :kookoo:
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
451 (0.19/day)
Are you reading that chart backwards o_O :kookoo:
Wow, at a technical forum we'll be arguing about reading charts?



OK,

Ryzen 1700 vs Intel Core i5 2500:

AES: +70%
N-Body Physics: +26%
Ray Tracing: +38%
Memory Copy: (DDR4 2666 vs DDR3 1600): +29% (LOL, memory throughput must be at least 66% higher)
Memory Bandwidth: +46% (much better but still not even close to a theoretical improvement)

LLVM: -49%
SFFT: -25%
Memory Latency: -24%
Lua: -11%
Dijkstra: -17%
HTML5 Parse: -17%
Histogram Equalization: -11%
PDF Rendering: -13%

More or less a draw in all others.

MOAR COARS it's what Ryzen is. And luckily their SMT(HT) implementation is great as well. So if one needs MORE COARS then Ryzen shines but such use cases are primarily for professionals (rendering, encoding).

Strangely AMD fanatics scream that Ryzen is better overall while clearly it's not the case.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
7,165 (3.86/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name Black Box
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2680 10c/20t 2.8GHz @ 3.0GHz
Motherboard Asrock X79 Extreme 11
Cooling Coolermaster 240 RGB A.I.O.
Memory G. Skill 16Gb (4x4Gb) 2133Mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 710
Storage Sandisk X 400 256Gb
Display(s) AOC 22" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Case Corsair 450D High Air Flow.
Audio Device(s) No need.
Power Supply FSP Aurum 650W
Mouse Yes
Keyboard Of course
Software W10 Home Premium 64 bit
Wow, at a technical forum we'll be arguing about reading charts?
Actually you have yet to prove you're not an idiot as you admitted with that picture.
I wasn't arguing anything, merely questioning your ability to comprehend something written in simple English.
Anyone with a brain can look at the chart and see it is not a case of apples V's apples when they are totally different systems running different O.S's.
Come back when the systems are equitable.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
451 (0.19/day)
OMG, this is getting ridiculous. The stupidity is way over the top now. Geekbench for Windows and Linux is compiled using the same compiler and its code for these two OSes is very similar except for the parts which interact with the OS - for instance the Linux version doesn't have any GUI whatsoever.

So you want a test done in Windows? I will give you one in a short while. Too bad it will match my Linux result.

Actually I won't bother. Like Mark Twain said, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".

Edit: my Windows results - you were right, Windows is 6% slower. OMG, what a difference it makes. Suddenly it invalidates all my previous claims.
 
Last edited:

RCoon

Gaming Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
12,062 (4.36/day)
Location
Gypsyland, UK
System Name HP Omen 17
Processor i7 7700HQ
Memory 16GB 2400Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060
Storage Samsung SM961 256GB + HGST 1TB
Display(s) 1080p IPS G-SYNC 75Hz
Audio Device(s) Bang & Olufsen
Power Supply 230W
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD+
Software Win 10 Pro
The pooslinging isn't needed here. When you devolve into calling each other stupid it tends to make your arguments look weak and lacking. Tone it down a bit, we're all for hotly debated topics.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
6,232 (1.24/day)
Location
New York
System Name http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=73751
Motherboard i7-920 CO@4.2GHZ/MYSTERY P6T Deluxe Intel X58
Cooling MYSTERY Liquid CPU Cooling System
Memory MYSTERY DOMINATOR 6GB (3 x 2GB) DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) 2X ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB DDR5 PCI-Express
Storage (RAID-0) with 4 Identical Hard Drives (1.28TB (320GBx4)
Display(s) MYSTERY 50" 50PK550 1080p 600Hz Plasma/37 InchMYSTERY @1920x1080
Case MYSTERY e M9 (I hate it its like trying to live in a 1 inch box)
Power Supply MYSTERY ToughPower 1200 Watt
Software Windows 7 professional 64
look at the chart and see it is not a case of apples V's apples when they are totally different systems running different O.S's.
Come back when the systems are equitable.
Also different versions of the bench app too!


Ryzen Geekbench 4.1.0 Tryout / Intel Geekbench 4.0.0 Tryout
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
33 (0.02/day)
Location
North Dakota
System Name Oswald
Processor i5-6600K
Motherboard MSI Z170-A PRO
Cooling Cryorig M9i
Memory 8GB Mushkin Redline DDR4-2800
Video Card(s) XFX R9 380 4GB
Storage Plextor M8Pe 128GB, Intel 520 120GB, Toshiba DT01ACA200
Display(s) Sharp 46" TV
Case Superpower Zephyr
Power Supply Antec Edge 550
Mouse Logitech K400
Keyboard Logitech K400
Software Windows 10 Home
I wonder how much AMD paid to Futumark to skew the results towards CPUs with more cores. Compare these two results:

<chart images snipped>

I'm sorry but for 95% of people out there the last four tests are meaningless, while they actually power on their PCs and launch applications every day.
I don't understand why you feel these results are in AMD's favor. Essentials group: Intel wins by a score of 9759 to AMD's 8077. Productivity: 8127 vs. 6605. Which brings us to content creation, where the AMD system comes out on top by a almost exactly a factor of two (3313 to 6570). The AMD system also happens to have double the cores, so that result is entirely predictable. In the overall score, you have the 980 paired with the 1700X against the HD 530 in the 6700K, so the 3DMark portion of the test skews that result a bit. If AMD paid anything for altered results, it sure doesn't look like they got their money's worth to me.
 
Top