There is a variety of customer groups in need of as much processing power as possible. Especially in the field of content creation, which includes editing pictures and videos or even rendering a complex scenery with beautiful effects, performance improvements quickly translate into higher income by the end of the month. With this series of articles we're going to compare two processors. The CPUs tested are being run at stock clocks as well as overclocked and apart from that we will also vary the memory frequency. It is our goal to show which CPU is how much faster or slower than another one.
|
Motherboard |
- MSI Z170I Gaming Pro AC (BIOS 1.5)
- MSI 970A SLI Krait Edition (BIOS P4)
|
| CPU |
- Core i5-6600K @ Default
- Core i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz
- Core i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000
- AMD FX-8320 @ Default
- AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz
 |
|
Memory |
- G.Skill Ripjaws F4-3000C15Q Quad Channel 4x4GB
- KLEVV Essencore 16 GB 4x4 1600
|
|
Graphics Cards |
- nVidia GeForce GTX 980
Ti
|
|
OS |
|
|
System Drive |
|
|
PSU |
- Seasonic Platinum SS-1000XP / 1000 Watts
|
[pagebreak]
PCMark08
PCMark 8 includes tests based on popular Adobe and Microsoft applications. In order to test the max perfomance of our system, we run the Creative benchmark suite in “Conventional” mode without OpenCL acceleration. PCMark 8 Creative benchmark includes workloads typical for enthusiasts and professionals who work in the field of content creation. The score in PCMark 8 Creative is measured in points where higher is better.
Creative
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
3'669 |
73.18 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
3'882 |
77.42 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
5'014 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
5'197 |
103.65 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
5'222 |
104.15 |
[pagebreak]
3DMark
3DMark is a benchmarking tool created and developed by Futuremark Corporation to determine the 3D rendering performance of GPU and CPU. In this article we only use the Physix workload testing routing to find out how capable a processor is. The score is measured in points where higher is better.
Fire Strike Physix
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
6'971 |
80.95 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
8'085 |
93.89 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
8'611 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
9'185 |
106.67 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
9'352 |
108.61 |
3DMark 11 Physix
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
6'398 |
81.36 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
6'908 |
87.84 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
7'864 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
8'271 |
105.18 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
8'845 |
112.47 |
[pagebreak]
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft's Excel doesn't need much introduction, since we believe almost all of our readers have worked at least once with this application. In order to check performance we're using a file which conducts extensive calculations. In order to determine performance we measure the time it takes to finish the calculations.
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
1'560 |
24.42 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
1'380 |
27.61 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
381 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
351 |
108.55 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
348 |
109.48 |
[pagebreak]
Cinebench R15
Cinebench is a real-world cross platform test suite that evaluates your computer's 3D rendering capabilities. The test scenario uses all of your system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (from the viral "No Keyframes" animation by AixSponza). This scene makes use of various algorithms to stress all available processor cores.
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
560 |
90.76 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
668 |
108.27 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
617 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
688 |
111.51 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
705 |
114.26 |
[pagebreak]
SiSoft Sandra
SiSoft Sandra is a theoretical multi purpose benchmark suite which is able to show differences in CPU architectures. Therefore on this page you'll find Arithmetic-, Multimedia- and Cryptography-benchmarks.
Arithmetik Dhrystone
| |
GIPS |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
90.34 |
68.17 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
108.68 |
82.01 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
132.52 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
149.15 |
112.55 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
152.57 |
115.13 |
Arithmetik Whetstone
| |
GFLOPS |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
65.45 |
103.17 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
77.53 |
122.21 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
63.44 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
67.34 |
106.15 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
68.18 |
107.47 |
Multimedia Integer
| |
MPixels/sec |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
262.33 |
78.37 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
302.48 |
90.37 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
334.72 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
357.31 |
106.75 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
361.33 |
107.95 |
Multimedia Floating Point
| |
MPixels/sec |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
186.22 |
61.75 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
201.44 |
66.79 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
301.59 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
319.27 |
105.86 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
326.67 |
108.32 |
Cryptography AES
| |
GB/sec |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
7.35 |
93.75 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
7.66 |
97.70 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
7.84 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
10.41 |
132.78 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
10.58 |
134.95 |
Cryptography SHA
| |
GB/sec |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
2.45 |
181.48 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
2.77 |
205.19 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
1.35 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
1.42 |
105.19 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
1.43 |
105.93 |
[pagebreak]
Blackhole Benchmark Multithreaded
Black Hole evaluates the raw double precision performance with floating point as well as integer operations. There two different routines: multithreaded and singlethreaded. Multithreaded will load all available threads, while singlethreaded will use only one thread.
Single Thread
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
2'252 |
60.73 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
2'480 |
66.88 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
3'708 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
4'004 |
107.98 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
4'082 |
110.09 |
4 Threads
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
2'904 |
56.54 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
3'312 |
64.49 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
5'136 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
5'504 |
107.17 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
5'568 |
108.41 |
Multithreaded
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
5'784 |
104.33 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
6'776 |
122.22 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
5'544 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
6'008 |
108.37 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
6'436 |
116.09 |
Overall
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
10'940 |
76.04 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
12'568 |
87.35 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
14'388 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
15'516 |
107.84 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
16'086 |
111.80 |
[pagebreak]
WinRAR
WinRAR is one of the most common file archiving programs. In our test we use the application’s in-built benchmark utility to determine CPU performance. Performance is measured in KB/s (kilobytes per second), where higher is better.
| |
KB/s |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
7'855 |
157.98 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
8'492 |
170.80 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
4'972 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
5'740 |
115.45 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
6'858 |
137.39 |
7-Zip
7-Zip is an open-source file archiving program. We use the application’s built-in benchmark utility to measure CPU performance regarding compression and decompression of files. We test with a dictionary size of 32MB and use all availables threads. The results is displayed in MIPS (millions of instructions per second), where higher is better.
| |
MIPS |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
20'679 |
123.50 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
24'508 |
146.37 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
16'774 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
18'776 |
112.14 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
19'263 |
115.04 |
[pagebreak]
Frybench
Frybench is based on fryrender, which is one of the most demanding engines in its category. Fryrender uses every CPU core available without wasting as little CPU cycles as possible. The benchmark has been written to take as much advantage as possible of the new multi-threading processors. The final score is disaplyed in minutes. To keep things easier for comparison we're displaying the results in seconds and lower is better.
| |
Sec |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
360 |
101.94 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
310 |
118.39 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
367 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
348 |
105.46 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
321 |
114.33 |
[pagebreak]
HandBrake
HandBrake is an open-source, GPL-licensed, multiplatform, multithreaded video transcoder, available for MacOS X, Linux and Windows. This software puts multithread CPUs to good use and it allows to transcode videos using different codec, like for instance h.264. For our test we have used a short 4K video file and transcode it with the h.264 and the h.265 codec using the so called high profile and the file is being saved in a MP4 container. The result you see below is average frames per second, where more is better.
h.264
| |
Avg FPS |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
9.97 |
76.52 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
11.42 |
87.64 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
13.03 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
14.18 |
108.83 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
14.29 |
109.67 |
h.265
| |
Avg FPS |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
6.56 |
72.65 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
7.67 |
84.94 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
9.03 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
9.31 |
103.10 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
9.59 |
106.20 |
[pagebreak]
Photoshop
We guess almost anybody knows Photoshop. In the case of our performance comparison we're using an action script from Keith Simonian, which applies "radial blur" to a 4.8MB test picture. Apart from that Photoshop can measure the time it takes until the operation is complete.
| |
Points |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
20.4 |
68.14 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
15.9 |
87.42 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
13.3 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
12.9 |
104.59 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
12.9 |
107.51 |
[pagebreak]
Performance Rating
| |
% |
| FX-8320 @ Default |
87.42 |
| FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
99.80 |
| |
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
108.84 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
112.67 |
[pagebreak]
Power Consumption
Idle
| |
Watt |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
71 |
154.35 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
114 |
247.83 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
46 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
48 |
104.35 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
52 |
110.87 |
Load
| |
Watt |
% |
| AMD FX-8320 @ Default |
412 |
324.41 |
| AMD FX-8320 @ 4.2 GHz |
434 |
341.73 |
| |
|
|
| Core
i5-6600K @ Default |
127 |
100.00 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz |
135 |
106.30 |
| Core
i5-6600K @ 4.2 GHz DDR4-3000 |
138 |
108.66 |
[pagebreak]
Conclusion
Default
First of all we’re going to have a closer look at performance differences with standard clock speeds. From our overall performance rating we see that the Core i5-6600K is on average
14.39 % quicker than the AMD FX-8320. If we start searching for the benchmarks with best possible scaling on the
i5-6600K, then we find Excel running 409.50% faster on this CPU and Photoshop benefitting by 46.76%. Both these applications appear to be highly optimized towards Intels current architecture. Therefore it's very interesting to see that the AMD CPU is actually capable to putting it's eight cores to good use in WinRAR performing 57.98% faster than the i5-6600K.
We also had a closer look at power consumption and in idle we notice that our test setup with Core i5-6600K was burning
54.35% less power than the same system equipped with AMD FX-8320. In case of load power consumption the difference is absolutely drastic with the Core i5-6600K using 224.41% less energy. Apparently the reason for that is that the much smaller 14nm manufacturing process with the Intel CPU simply plays in another league when it comes to power consumption.
4.2 GHz
Overclocking the Core i5-6600K increases the average performance by 8.84%, while the FX-8320 benefits by 14.16%.
A closer look at power consumption reveals that overclocking these CPUs makes for
quite a difference in certain cases. With the Core i5-6600K we see system power consumption go up by 4.35% in idle and 6.30% under load, when comparing with default power
consumption values. In the case of the AMD FX-8320 system power consumption
goes up by 60.56% in idle and 5.34% under full load.
Recommendation
Comparing these two processors is definitely not an easy task. As we learnt from the test results the application can account for huge performance differences. As we mentioned the i5-6600K benefits massively in Excel, while the FX-8320 can show its muscles running WinRAR. Therefore looking at our performance index only tells half the story and in the case of comparing recent Intel with AMD FX processors we strongly recommend you to study the sepcific test results and ask yourself what applications you're going to run on your system most.
In the end there are two things which are rather clear: power consumption and price. In terms of what the two test systems were pulling from the wall the new Intel platform is simply in another league, which is obvious considering the much smaller manufacturing process. That process technology allows for massively increased energy efficiency. The second thing, that might not cause too much discussion is pricing. These days an Intel Core i5-6600K costs about 239 Euro, while the FX-8320 sells at 139 Euro. Apart from that the entire AMD platform is cheaper than the Intel platform. Usually we'd now write that the for XY% more performance with the Core i5-6600K you'd have to pay XYZ% premium. In the case of these two processors we will not do this because that does not take energy efficiency into account. Nevertheless if you're on a really tight budget then a platform based on the FX-8320 can be a reasonable choice.
