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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

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.

Web: SunSpider on Chrome 56

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.

Web: Mozilla Kraken 1.1 on Chrome 56

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.

Web: Google Octane 2.0 on Chrome 56

WebXPRT 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.

Web: WebXPRT 15 on Chrome 56

Overall, all of our web benchmarks show a similar trend. Very few web frameworks offer multi-threading – the browsers themselves are barely multi-threaded at times – so Threadripper's vast thread count is underutilized. What wins the day on the web are a handful of fast cores with high single-threaded performance.

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests
Comments Locked

347 Comments

View All Comments

  • coolhardware - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Hi B3an, what will you primarily be using your 1950X for?

    I do not really have the workload to justify that CPU, but I wish I did ;-)
  • Mugur - Sunday, August 13, 2017 - link

    I suggest you to read other TR reviews. Some were testing GPU rendering and they show that even in this case you need the best cpu you can get.
  • minde - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    i see in foto on amd processor MADE IN CHINA . without comment. what difference
    between intel and amd quality , class
  • mr_tawan - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    TSMC perhaps?
  • tuxRoller - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    I'm very curious as to how this will perform with smt enabled and numa being exposed.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    On page 1, does Ryzen use an AMD implementation of SMT or hyper-threading (i.e. licensed from Intel). I've been under the impression it's the former, and referring to SMT as hyper-threading in this instance is incorrect. Intel's was not the first or the only way to implement SMT.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    When you went with 2400 speed RAM to slow down TR you forgot to make it single channel.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Error in Dolphin benchmark description: "Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores 17.53 minutes." should be results are given in seconds.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    On the last page it states "On the side of the 1920X, users will again see more cores, ECC support, and over double the number of PCIe lanes compared to the Core i7-7820X for $100 difference."

    According to the accompanying chart it's a ~$200 difference. Either the chart is wrong or that statement.
  • quadi9 - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    I picked up an I9-7900x at a local Micro Center for $899 this week. And it is running stable at 4.6 GHZ. How well does the Ryzen overclock? My Blender BMW score was 181 seconds. Just opened the file and clicked Render.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now