The Intel Skylake-X Review: Core i9 7900X, i7 7820X and i7 7800X Tested
by Ian Cutress on June 19, 2017 9:01 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
264 Comments
View All Comments
AnandTechReader2017 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
And no load/idle? And clockspeed at full load?Also, no mention of Intel drawing more than the rated load?
AnandTechReader2017 - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Sorry, missed the paragraph under on refresh.wolfemane - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Seriously... you don't post gaming results because of bios issues? Seems RYZEN had issues due to premature bios as well but that sure as hell didn't keep you all from posting results anyways.I was going to give kudos to you guys as I was reading the article for excluding gaming reaults on workstation CPU's. But nope, you had to add that little blurb there at the end.
Pretty god damn shameful if you ask me. Post the results, then do a follow up when venders get their crap together and release reliable bios. The same venders that blamed AMD for their inability to create half way decent bios.
Ryan Smith - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Unfortunately it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for us. The Skylake-X platform is still quite immature in some respects, and Intel did not give us a ton of lead-time in testing it. The BIOSes only came in a bit before Ian had to get on a plane. So we've been racing the clock for the past week trying to pull things together.What we do have are a set of incomplete data that still shows some issues. But we need time to further validate that data, and even more time to write about it. Both of which have been in short supply over the last few days.
Mentioning gaming at all is because we wanted to point out that there are still issues, and that anyone who is primarily interested in gaming is likely best served by waiting, rather than jumping on Intel's pre-orders.
wolfemane - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
I GET where you are coming from. But you (Anandtech) had no issues posting AMD Ryzen results knowing full well that the x370 platform was far *FAR* from mature. Anandtech and other reviewers didn't hesitate to mention all the bugs possibly holding the platform back. But you still posted the results. As you should have.Ian Cutress - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Err, what? Our Ryzen 7 review did not have gaming benchmarks.http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-an...
wolfemane - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Well... guess how incredibly stupid I feel? If I could retract my comment I would. I'll go reread the launch review again.cheshirster - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
No need to apologizeHere are gaming tests on DDR4-3000 @ 2400 downclocked memory
With Ryzens BADLY underperforming in RoTR and Rocket League pretty much published
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-...
And for Intel they write this
"Our GTX1080 seems to be hit the hardest out of our four GPUs, as well as Civilization 6, the second Rise of the Tomb Raider test, and Rocket League on all GPUs. As a result, we only posted a minor selection of results, most of which show good parity at 4K"
DanNeely - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Check the dates; that was published about 5 weeks after the initial Zen review that Ian linked to above. The initial one didn't have any gaming data yet; because in both cases the release day situation was too broken.melgross - Monday, June 19, 2017 - link
Yeah, it's usually considered to be proper to first read about what you're commenting upon.