The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review: Twelve Threads vs Four at $250
by Ian Cutress on April 11, 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 Web2013 is the older tool, superceded by Web2015, however both still are highly relevant for high-performance web applications today.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
254 Comments
View All Comments
802Shaun - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Just a friendly correction: It should be "200% more threads" instead of 300% more. Thanks for the article!Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Updated :)ChristopherF - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Wouldn't 300% be correct since 12 is 3x 4?mickulty - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
It has 300% of the threads, but has 200% *more* threads.buri - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Your logic is correct if you say "3 times", but with percentages you always refer to the % amount more. In this case is 8 threads more, so 200% of 4 threads. 6 threads more would have been 150% more, and so onMobiusPizza - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
It's either 200% MORE threads or 300% the original thread count.ddriver - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Nice to see AMD not only back in the game, being competitive in trivial computing workloads, but also offering TWICE the value where PERFORMANCE really MATTERS - rendering, encoding, compiling and other time intensive workloads.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
Indeed it is. I recently built a PC with a 1700X, and my friend said it was a massive improvement over his old FX 6350SquarePeg - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
I'm wondering how low AMD's pricing will go on R3 chip's if they can bring a 4C/4T low end R3 to market for $99 that can overclock decently then the FX 6300/6350 will have a true successor.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link
That's also something I'm interested in. Right now it reaches down to $170, which is still in the upper mid-range, but if it can go even further down, I'd be pretty happy with it.