The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTBenchmarking Performance: CPU Web Tests
One of the issues when running web-based tests is the nature of modern browsers to automatically install updates. This means any sustained period of benchmarking will invariably fall foul of the 'it's updated beyond the state of comparison' rule, especially when browsers will update if you give them half a second to think about it. Despite this, we were able to find a series of commands to create an un-updatable version of Chrome 56 for our 2017 test suite. While this means we might not be on the bleeding edge of the latest browser, it makes the scores between CPUs comparable.
SunSpider 1.0.2 [link]
The oldest web-based benchmark in this portion of our test is SunSpider. This is a very basic javascript algorithm tool, and ends up being more a measure of IPC and latency than anything else, with most high performance CPUs scoring around about the same. The basic test is looped 10 times and the average taken. We run the basic test 4 times.
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 [link]
Kraken is another Javascript based benchmark, using the same test harness as SunSpider, but focusing on more stringent real-world use cases and libraries, such as audio processing and image filters. Again, the basic test is looped ten times, and we run the basic test four times.
Google Octane 2.0 [link]
Along with Mozilla, as Google is a major browser developer, having peak JS performance is typically a critical asset when comparing against the other OS developers. In the same way that SunSpider is a very early JS benchmark, and Kraken is a bit newer, Octane aims to be more relevant to real workloads, especially in power constrained devices such as smartphones and tablets.
WebXPRT 2013 and 2015 [link]
While the previous three benchmarks do calculations in the background and represent a score, WebXPRT is designed to be a better interpretation of visual workloads that a professional user might have, such as browser based applications, graphing, image editing, sort/analysis, scientific analysis and financial tools. Web2013 is the older tool, superceded by Web2015, however both still are highly relevant for high-performance web applications today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
ABR - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Are there any examples of games at 1080p where this actually matters? (I.e., not a drop from 132 to 108 fps, but from 65 to 53 or 42 to 34?)ABR - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I mean at 1080p. (Edit, edit...)0ldman79 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
That's my thought as well.Seriously, it isn't like we're talking unplayable, it is still ridiculous gaming levels. It is almost guaranteed to be a scheduler problem in Windows judging by the performance deficit compared to other applications. If it isn't, it is still running very, very well.
Hell, I can play practically anything I can think of on my FX 6300, I don't really *need* a better CPU right now, I'm just really, really tempted and looking for excuses (I can't encode at the same speed in software as my Nvidia encoder, damn, I need to upgrade...)
Outlander_04 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Do you think anyone building a computer with a $500 US chip is going to just be spending $120 on a 1080p monitor?More likely they will be building it for higher resolutions
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
I've seen it happen...mdriftmeyer - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Who gives a crap if you've seen it happen. Your experience is an anomaly relative to the totality of statistical data.Notmyusualid - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Or somebody was just happy with their existing screen?I can actually point to two friends with 1080 screens, both lovely water cooled rigs, one is determined to keep his high-freq 1080 screen, and the other one just doesn't care. So facts is facts son.
I guess it is YOU that gives that crap afterall.
Zaggulor - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
Statistical data suggests that people don't actually often get a new display when they change a GPU and quite often that same display will be moved to a new rig too.Average upgrade times for components are:
CPU: ~4.5 years
GPU: ~2.5 years
Display: ~7 years
These days you can also use any unused GPU resources for downsampling even if your CPU can't push any more frames. Both GPU vendors have build in support for it (VSR/DSR).
hyno111 - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Or a $200 1080p/144Hz/Freesync monitor.Marburg U - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
I guess it's time to retire my Core 2 Quad.