Performance Testing for the Common Man: Fast, Easy Benchmarks You Can Run Right Now
From Enumeration Comes Elucidation
Benchmarks are for the pros, right? Gordon Mah Ung disappears into the maw of the Maximum PC lab for days, and emerges to tell the world whether the next CPU or chipset matters. I'm often hunkered down in the basement lab at the Case House, running endless series of games and 3D tests on graphics cards to find that sweet card just right for your budget.
Every now and then, though, you need to check the performance of your system. Maybe it seems to be running sluggishly. Perhaps you just got a new graphics card, or doubled your installed DRAM. So you want to run some quick performance tests to see if your system is indeed more sluggish than before, or faster with that upgrade.
What you want to do is run the appropriate benchmark. Benchmarks are simply standardized methods for testing performance. They may be standalone applications specifically designed to test performance of a particular component (like a graphics card) or the entire system. Another type of benchmarks uses an actual application as the test, but these often only tell you how your system or component behaves with that one application.
This isn't a comprehensive tutorial on how to run benchmarks for repeatable results; if you want to know the skinny on benchmarking methodologies, check out Gordon's article on that topic. Instead, we'll be diving into the world of quick and dirty benchmarking: testing your system as a quick way to see the impact of changes, or as troubleshooting tools.
In addition, this is benchmarking on a budget. We'll be using benchmarks or applications available at the best possible price: free. In some cases, the free benchmark may be a stripped-down version of a more robust test; if so, we'll mention that. Our trip down benchmarking lane is also divided up by categories: CPU, graphics, storage, and system tests.
But before diving into the specifics of individual tests, let's take a look at the two key reasons an everyday user might want to run benchmarks. Let's begin, shall we?

Something Changed
Something in your system has changed. Maybe it was an intentional change on your part—you added more DRAM, dropped in a second graphics card, or finally plunked down some hard earned coin for a shiny new SSD.
Maybe you're tweaking your system, trying to overclock it to the maximum stable setting. In that case, you need to make one change at a time, and then run a couple of benchmarks. For maximum stability testing, you may want to run them for several hours.
Or perhaps the change is something you noticed. Your system suddenly takes longer to load applications—or is it just your imagination? Your frame rates go from butter smooth to chunky monkey—or maybe it's just that new game?
Whatever the change, it's time to run a few performance tests. The right benchmark may tell you if that new SSD really is faster than your old 10,000RPM Raptor RAID 0 setup. Or it might tell you that something's gone wrong with your graphics setup, if 3D benchmarks are suddenly in the tank compared to a few weeks back.
New System Baseline
You've just finished installing Windows 7, along with the 3,542 required updates. All the drivers are current, and your new system is humming along nicely. What's the first application you should install?
Why, a benchmark of course. Better yet, install several.
Some would say you should install some type of dedicated burn-in application. However, I've discovered over the years that a good benchmark—or sometimes, multiple benchmarks run at the same time make excellent burn-in apps.
You also want to set a performance baseline. For that, you need to run a systems benchmark, a storage test and a 3D benchmark. Depending on what applications you run most often, it may also be worth running benchmarks that replicate how those apps work—game benchmarks if you're a PC gamer, or a benchmark like Cinebench if you're into 3D modeling and rendering.
You want to run those tests before you clutter your system up with applications, many of which may run background applets or pre-load DLLs during system boot. That way, you establish a baseline for the performance of your new system. So if you get to a point where the system seems to get sluggish, you can run those same tests and compare to the original results. My general rule of thumb is that if my heavily loaded system that's been running actively for six months or more running less than 10% slower than the baseline, I'm still good. If overall performance exceeds that, I begin to look at ways to declutter the system.
Okay, you've got your baseline performance measured and recorded. But what benchmarks should you use for your baseline? Let's look at a few.
System Benchmarks
System benchmarks typically generate a score that's an aggregate of different performance metrics, including CPU, memory, storage, graphics, and some tests that reflect combinations of those individual subsystems, like video playback. There are numerous system benchmarks available, of varying pedigree and cost.
For general system benchmarks, I've gradually settled on FutureMark's PC Mark. It's not perfect, but the free basic version of the most current PCMark 7 exercises your system pretty well. I've used other tests, like Passmark and Novabench but none of those seem to really thrash the system. PCMark can also be a great stability test—if PCMark crashes, it's because something is dodgy with your system, not the benchmark, provided the benchmark has been properly installed and updated.

PCMark 7. The free, basic version only runs the PCMark Suite and generates a single score.
PC Mark is considered a synthetic benchmark, since it's not an actual application, but it is built with actual instructions recorded from using the built-in applications that ship with Windows.
If you want to update to the advanced version, though, it costs $40. That's certainly cheaper than the $250 PC World charges for a single user version of PC WorldBench 6. The upside to spending the $40 is that you also gain access to one of the best applications-based disk benchmarks around. (The basic version doesn't give you access to the storage test.) The PCMark 7 storage test is built on Intel's original RankDisk benchmark, and uses recorded behavior from actual applications to hammer the drives.
Another useful—and free—system test is PC Wizard, from the same people that bring you CPU-Z, the popular CPU and system ID tool. PC Wizard also give you a set of individual tests for different subsystems that can be useful.

PC Wizard generates a graphical result based on a reference system.
There are other free benchmarks available, as we noted, but most don't really exercise a Windows 7 system particularly well. Phoronix builds a benchmark that works with both Linux and Windows, but as with many similar open projects, it requires a certain amount of manual effort and script writing to get it to work.
CPU and Memory Benchmarks
Sometimes it's worth testing just the CPU. I once noticed that my system seemed to suddenly be running sluggishly. After running a couple of CPU tests and comparing it to my baseline tests, the CPU seemed to be running almost 50% slower. At first, I suspected heat throttling, but the core temperature was around 40 degrees C at idle. Then I discovered that the BIOS update I'd installed had reset the CPU to its lowest clock speed. This would never happen to a retail CPU, but the new BIOS didn't know how to handle the engineering sample CPU I was running, and set it to the clock frequency of the slowest product it knew.
There are several useful CPU specific benchmarks worth using. One old standby is Prime95. Prime95 is a pretty geeky benchmark, spitting out a set of results for different sets of fast Fourier transforms, and running different thread and core counts before completion. It's probably more useful as a stress test. One torture test I often run when burning in a system is to run a combination of Prime95 in blend mode while simultaneously running the older 3DMark 2006 benchmark. If the entire system can run those two benchmarks in concert for a few hours, the system will almost certainly be stable for gaming.

Prime95 is pretty geeky, but useful for torture testing.
The processor test built into PC Wizard, mentioned earlier, is also a good, relatively quick test. It's not as useful for torture testing, but sometimes you just need some quick performance validation. I'm not a big believer in memory benchmarks. Those results often don't translate well into actual performance. But the memory and latency tests in PC Wizard, like the CPU tests, are good for validating what your memory is doing.

The PC Wizard CPU test is pretty synthetic, but can be useful.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
mattman059
October 16, 2011 at 8:59pm
" Perhaps you just got a new graphics card, or doubled your installed DRAM"
HOW DID YOU KNOW!!!!!
![]()
loyd
October 14, 2011 at 10:25am
I'm actually not familiar with Kombuster. But Furmark can actually push a graphics card beyond its rated parameters. So that test should be used with care.
![]()
akrazyassho
October 13, 2011 at 8:32pm
Question about the Heaven benchmark and tessellation in general. In the benchmark you can turn on and off tessellation, but there is a huge difference. Ex: the stones on the walls all come out to a certain height/ have a unque depth, but when you turn off tes. they are all flat walls/surfaces. My question is, that depth that the stones/rocks have, is that built into the benchmark or is that really the card deciding and rendering at its own free will due to tessellation??
![]()
loyd
October 14, 2011 at 10:23am
The answer is both. The programmer gives some hints as to how much tessellation should be generated. In the case of Heaven, the designers have given the user some control over this through tessellation levels. If you get past the performance test stuff, you'll see that "extreme" tessellation actually looks pretty bad, while moderate degrees of tessellation adds pleasing levels of geometric detail.
![]()
maleficarus™
October 13, 2011 at 3:28pm
Stress-testing is stupid! Why "bake" your CPU like that when it will never represent anything you will ever do in real world situations. Why not just toss your CPU in the oven for 30 mins at 350 degrees? Same silly logic...
![]()
steven4570
October 13, 2011 at 4:29pm
stress testing is more designed for testing an overclocks stability not really benchmarking, in that reguard it is very useful
![]()
xXSINS OF WARXx
October 13, 2011 at 4:26pm
Idk, why did Einstein come up with the mathematical equation of e=mc^2? Why did NASA decide to send a rocket to the moon? Or why do numerous people around the globe try to break countless Guinness world records? The answer is simple; because we can. If we as a nation were to simply stop pushing the boundaries that life sets before us then the conveniences we so ignorantly take for granted would cease to exist and human nature will never continue to evolve; those types of infectious negative ideas will only plague our children…
![]()
maleficarus™
October 13, 2011 at 4:56pm
What kind of nonesense is this? Baking your CPU with prime95 or IBT is not only stupid, but useless as well. It does not in anyway shape or form represent anything we do on our PC's. Common sense logic dictates that if this isn't a real world representation, then it is not logical to do! Common sense people!!
We can all jump off a bridge. Does that mean we should because we can?
![]()
steven4570
October 16, 2011 at 6:06pm
i hate people who use the term"common sense logic" because in most cases they have no fucking clue what theyre talking about. Some systems if we change anytthing for what every reason, need to be tested for stability. one time i had stabiity issues with everything at stock speed on this one pc i built, turns out the default voltages in the outdated bios were wrong. it has its place, its not going to fry or die because of it, cpus like that will be working far longer than youll be using them ill guarantee.
![]()
pcfxer
October 13, 2011 at 5:38pm
You stress test for stability to simulate the life/usage of the CPU within a much shorter time span. For example; you want to know that your overclock will last for five years at five hours per day so you run a stress test for say one week at tewnty four hours per day. The goal is to design a test that will allow you to certify that your overclock is stable for normal usage.
AMD and Intel both do this on their CPUs. Automotive manufacturers do this as well; most iconicly Porsche did this with the Beetle. This is common practice in engineering.
![]()
maleficarus™
October 13, 2011 at 7:31pm
Yes at stock speeds. Not OC speeds that everyone uses for stress-testing. Not a single person uses prime95 stock do they? So your point is not valid at all...
![]()
JCGPZ9
October 13, 2011 at 10:10pm
Actually I do when trying out a new thermal paste or heatsink. It's a great way to put sress on the CPU while still monitoring it.
![]()
Coldrage
October 14, 2011 at 11:56am
maleficarus™ way to make yourself look like a total tool.
I'm using a Q6600 @ 4.0 GHz since august 2007 and fold every day with it, stressed tested it countless times and it is still going strong.
CPU's these days are well designed to deal with heat.
Putting a CPU in an oven is just a terrible analogy.Folding as I speak with all 4 cores at 60c
As previously said, benchmarking is an excellent way to measure the performance of a piece of hardware, it sets the bar for what you can expect in real world applications and how it will perform.
Not sure if troll or just stupid.
![]()
onisuriyuuu
October 25, 2011 at 9:39pm
He kinda is a little of both. Obviously I am forced to run at stock froob.
My I-5 -2500k Is on a P8H67? forgot the model. And limited to a multiplier of 33 not 55 -> ie: 4-5GHZ. versus my 3.4GHZ.
I Dare you to find a way to increase the clock even higher (without turbo) to a multiplier of ... 40's with this board, i will pay you a brand new i7-2300k.
Note: My clock is even bellow stock clock..... The stock is 34 multiplier, my clock is 33 just a bit under the clock by about .... 50 mhz
Its impossible. So its best to know my heat limits when I try to use the most of what my clock has to offer me. And guess what.
My Temp is 55C at all 4 cores at 100 percent usage. ALSO Many times the insane multitasking that I do my CPU usage often does go upbound to 100 percent usage DAILY for hours on end. Why? Tell that to my 80 open tabs, my Photoshop, MMORPG's, ESET Nod 32 Scans, Maleware Byte Scans, Skype (amazingly takes 25% CPU for the insane convo's i get)
ON THE OTHER HAND. My GPU which I had to watch intently Heated up to around 60's Celcius which is highly... dangerous on my part, Because the closer it gets to 80 C the slower it gets, and also the more wear and also 80c is the failure point anyways. SO Benchmarking allowed me to see my Maximum sustained tempature and estimated fluxuations within the tempeture based on ambient tempatrue, it allows me to clock my GPU to get the most out of it without totally blowing it to pieces for running it for longer periods.... Obviously Things don't cool down at 100% it gets hotter and hotter and hotter as the ambient tempature increases from your mini heater of a computer, untill the room gets to a point the computer can hit 80c ..... But that will never happen because I have central Air and my room is well circulated. However If i was in someplace like pueto rico..... my computer is going to be HOT HOT HOT. litterally, and maybe melt a little.
i5-2500k, Frio Cooler ( Cold like a fridge :O )
Radeon 5570 (win exp: 6.7 on 7.9 ) Going to upgrade this soon My CPU is cooler than it....
Corsair 800w
8GB Vengance D3 Ram running dual ch 1333mhz (board limited would have been 1600mz)
Segate 1TB 5900rpm Storage Drive.
Samsung Display? 1600x 1200 its... so... clear, and so big. Guessing around just under 30 in
And other Misc Accessories Like my Mamba Mouse, and smaller hard drives not note worthy ex 250GB
Other than any typo's i might have put or nonsense sentence at 1:00 AM in the morning, please tell me or ask any other questions, and I will be gladly to clarify anything.
![]()
triclops41
October 13, 2011 at 1:06pm
Lloyd, can you comment on why you don't linke Kombuster or Furmark for benchmarking?
![]()
onisuriyuuu
October 25, 2011 at 9:42pm
Quite honestly His theory is that You can push your GPU too far (obviously the benchmark is made to push your hardware not find a place that feels comfortable) and do some severe permanent damage and possibly void your waranty if pushed out of manufacture regulated Over clocks. ( My Radeon has a factory overclock, however if i go beyond this I can void the waranty )
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.


















