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 Web2013 is the older tool, superceded by Web2015, however both still are highly relevant for high-performance web applications today.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
mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
If you have a Q6600, I can understand that, but the QX9650 ain't too bad. ;)Marburg U - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I'm on a Q9550 running at 3.8 for the past 6 years. I could still run modern games at 1050p, with a r9 270x, but that's the best i can squeeze out of it. Mind that i'm still on DDR2 (my motherboard turns 10 in a few months). I really want to embrace a ultra wide monitor.mapesdhs - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Moving up to 2560x1440 may indeed benefit from faster RAM, but it probably depends on the game. Likewise, CPU dependencies vary, and they can lessen at higher resolutions, though this isn't always the case. Still, good point about DDR2 there. To what kind of GPU were you thinking of upgrading? Highend like 1080 Ti? Mid-range? Used GTX 980s are a good deal these days, and a bunch of used 980 Tis will likely hit the market shortly. I've tested 980 SLI with older platforms, actually not too bad, though I've not done tests with my QX9650 yet, started off at the low end to get through the pain. :D (P4/3.4 on an ASUS Striker II Extreme, it's almost embarassing)Ian.
Meditari - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I'm actually using a Q9550 that's running at 3.8 as well. I have a 980ti and it can do 4k, albeit at 25-30fps in newer games like Witcher 3. Fairly certain a 1080ti would work great with a Q9550, but I feel like the time for these chips is coming to an end. Still incredible that a 8 year old chip can still hold it's own by just upgrading the GPUmapesdhs - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Intriguing! Many people don't even try to use such a card on an older mbd, they just assume from sites reviews that it's not worth doing. Can you run 3DMark11/13? What results do you get? You won't be able to cite the URLs here directly, but you can mention the submission numbers and I can compare them to my 980 Ti running on newer CPUs (the first tests I do with every GPU I obtain are with a 5GHz 2700K, at which speed it has the same multithreaded performance as a stock 6700K).What do you get for CB 11.5 and CB R15 single/multi?
What mbd are you using? I ask because some later S775 mbds did use DDR3, albeit not at quite the speeds possible with Z68, etc. In other words, you could move the parts on a better mbd as an intermediate step, though finding such a board could be difficult. Hmm, given the value often placed on such boards, it'd probably be easier to pick up a used 3930K and a board to go with it, that would be fairly low cost.
Or of course just splash for a 1700X. 8)
Ian.
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Welcome to the 21:9 fan club brother.But be careful of the 1920x1080 screens, my brother's 21:9 doesn't look half as good as my 3440x1440 screen.. It just needs that little bit more verticle resoultion.
My pals 4k screen is lovely, and brings his 4GB 980 GTX to its knees. Worse aspect ratio (in my opinion), and too many pixels (for now) to draw.
Careful of second-hand purchases too, many panels with backlight-bleed issues out there, and they are returns for that reason, again, in my opinion.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Long story short:20% lower single-thread than Intel
70% higher multi-thread due to 8 cores
$330-$500
Mugur - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Actually, on average -6.8% IPC versus Kaby Lake (at the same frequency) - I believe this came directly from AMD. Add to this a lower grade 14nm process (GF again) that is biting AMD again and again (see last year RX480). Motherboard issues (memory, HPET), OS/application issues (SMT, lack of optimizations).All in all, I'm really impressed of what they achieved with such obstacles.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Just looking at CineBench at a given TDP and price, AMD is 20% lower. That's the high level answer, regardless of IPC * clock frequency. I agree it's a huge win for AMD, and for users who need multicore performance.Cooe - Monday, March 1, 2021 - link
Maybe compare to Intel's Broadwell-E chips with actually similar core counts.... -_-