So the solution we selected (the least worst solution from the collection bad solutions) was to take all the average CPUMark values from PT9 (one value per CPU model) and then start averaging that with all the new PT10 results as they come in. And in the meantime we have no results for any new CPUs on PT9, as noboby will be using PT9 anymore. But if we wait until we have a million PT10 results, that might take a year. Obviously we want to start using the PT10 results on our graphs. So the PT10 CPUMark is somewhat comparable to the PT9 CPUMark. Probably the biggest algorithm overhaul in 20 years.īUT for the CPUMark value, which is a combination result derived from the results of all the individual tests, we scaled it back to PT9 levels. So the new individual PT10 results can't at least on the surface be compared to the PT9 results. So older CPUs, those with inadequate cache or memory bandwidth are expected not to perform so well with PT10. Improving the algorithms to push more data through the CPU also results in more load on the cache and memory subsystem. removed TwoFish encryption and replaced it with the more common Elliptic curve encryption. Fixed up a bunch of bugs that hurt performance (like some variable alignment issues and compiler optimization flags). Updated the 3rd party libraries we use for some of the tests (including more modern versions of GZip, Crypto++ and Bullet Physics. Have better support for out of order execution, which is a feature of newer CPUs.

Use a more up to date compiler (Visual Studio 2019 instead of 2013) which also brings some code optimization.

With millions of results we were able to get a pretty accurate average for each CPU model.īut for PerformanceTest V10 we did really major changes to the CPU test algorithms. We collected millions of benchmark results (baselines) that people sent in over the last few years from PerformanceTest V9 & V8. Yesterday we started to switch over the graphs on the web site to start to use results from PerformanceTest V10 (PT10)įor the single threaded result there were huge differences, but we are going to fix that up in a couple of days.įor the CPUMark result there is more of a dilemma. We released a new version of PerformanceTest a few days ago, version 10.

Ryzen 5 3600 benchmark passmark