Benchmarking 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.

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 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 Web2013 is the older tool, superceded by Web2015, however both still are highly relevant for high-performance web applications today. 

Web: WebXPRT 13 on Chrome 56

Web: WebXPRT 15 on Chrome 56

 

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

574 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link

    Yet another example of manipulation which wouldn't be tolerated in other areas of commercial product. I keep coming across examples in the tech world where products are deliberately crippled, prices get hiked, etc., but because it's tech stuff, nobody cares. Media never mentions it.

    Last week I asked a seller site about why a particular 32GB 3200MHz DDR4 kit they had listed (awaiting an ETA) was so much cheaper than the official kits for Ryzen (same brand of RAM please note). Overnight, the seller site changed the ETA to next week but also increased the price by a whopping 80%, making it completely irrelevant. I've seen this happen three times with different products in the last 2 weeks.

    Ian.
  • HomeworldFound - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link

    If they were pretty cheap then use your logic, placeholder prices happen. If they had no ETA the chances is that they had no prices. I don't see a shortage of decent DDR4 so it definitely isn't a supply and demand problem. Perhaps you need to talk to the manufacturer to get their guideline prices.
  • HomeworldFound - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link

    Not really. If developers wanted to enhance AMD platforms, or it was actually worth it they'd have done it by now. It's now just an excuse to explain either underperformance or an inability to work with the industry.
  • Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link

    @ sedra

    It certainly should not be forgotten, that is for sure.
  • Rene23 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    yet people here mentioned multiple times "settled in 2009"; pretending it is not happening anymore, sick :-/
  • GeoffreyA - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    I kind of vaguely knew that benchmarks were often unfairly optimised for Intel CPUs; but I never knew this detailed information before, and from such a reputable source: Agner Fog. I know that he's an authority on CPU microarchitectures and things like that. Intel is evil. Even now with Ryzen, it seems the whole software ecosystem is somewhat suboptimal on it, because of software being tuned over the last decade for the Core microarchitecture. Yet, despite all that, Ryzen is still smashing Intel in many of the benchmarks.
  • Outlander_04 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    Settled in 2009 .
    Not relevant to optimisation for Ryzen in any way
  • Rene23 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    settled in 2009 does not mean their current compiler and libraries are not doing it anymore, e.g. it could simply not run the best SSE/AVX code path disguised as simply not matching new AMD cpus properly.
  • cocochanel - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link

    One thing that is not being mentioned by many is the increase in savings when you buy a CPU + mobo. Intel knows how to milk the consumer. On their 6-8 core flagships, a mobo with a top chipset will set you back 300-400 $ or even more. That's a lot for a mobo. Add the overpriced CPU. I expect AMD mobos to offer better value. Historically, they always did.
    On top of that, a VEGA GPU will probably be a better match for Ryzen than an Nvidia card, but I say probably and not certainly.
    If I were to replace my aging gaming rig for Christmas, this would be my first choice.
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link

    Bang goes the saving when one asks about a RAM kit awaiting an ETA and the seller hikes the price by 80% overnight (see my comment above).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now