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

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

Sunspider goes after peak frequency most of the time, althoguh there is some variation as it moves into basically becoming a legacy test.

Mozilla Kraken 1.1

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

Kraken is more of an intense attack on JS, and still regularly sorts by IPC and frequency.

Google Octane 2.0

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

Octane seems to be an optimization target, and with the new Skylake-X it shows.

WebXPRT 2015

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

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests
POST A COMMENT

264 Comments

View All Comments

  • slickr - Tuesday, July 4, 2017 - link

    I've been a long time user here and I can SAFELY say you got paid by Intel. How much did they pay you for this ridiculous review? Reply
  • nevcairiel - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    The Ryzen 7 launch review didn't have gaming benchmarks either. Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    That's true, my bad, I didn't remember AT's review in particular, but I remember in most reviews gaming was like 3/4 of the review... Reply
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    My thoughts exactly. Not bagging on AT specifically here, just review sites in general. A lot of them are giving out TBD on gaming performance with mentions of it being OK at 4K, whereas with Ryzen it was all "but it games badly at 1080p which people spending $500 on a processor will totally be aiming at". Reply
  • bongey - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link

    They said it in their conclusion "Gaming Performance, particularly towards 240 Hz gaming, is being questioned,"
    "workstation cpu"
    Reply
  • ash9 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Totally agree,
    I find it disingenuous by this site and many others that there's an INTENTIONAL over look to the fact that the 7900X runs 70W higher (PC Perspective) than the 6950X at load- any blind man could see Intel boosted the clocks on the 7900X for cosmetic benchmark wins and to make this lineup today look relevant. Take the 7900X out of the benches and the lineup today looks anemic. This is the BS that should not go unnoticed
    Reply
  • Alexvrb - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link

    Reminds me a bit of the pre-Conroe era. Maybe they should have revived the Extreme Edition name... Reply
  • sweetca - Tuesday, June 20, 2017 - link

    Some people actually read the reviews here because they are gathering information for an imminent decision.

    Not everyone wants to wait 3 weeks (maybe delays?), and then to play it safe wait another 3 weeks for the next thing, etc.

    I don't post often, but I was surprised how quickly the writer's integrity and honesty were attacked, considering they were making a subjective evaluation; "safe." I guess this is common now.
    Reply
  • Timoo - Saturday, July 1, 2017 - link

    To be honest: calling the i9 7900X a "safe bet" is not a scientific decision. The platform is far from perfect and the CPU runs hot when OC'd. It has been introduced 2 months in advance of the official release date, to beat TR. To me these 3 facts don't make it a "safe bet", more like a "daring endeavor to save Intel's face".

    So yes, I do understand the attacks, apart from the FanBoy's FlameBaits...
    Reply
  • someonesomewherelse - Saturday, October 14, 2017 - link

    It's pretty safe if you can't actually buy it. Just don't buy it and later get a TR :) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now