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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

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 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.

Web: WebXPRT 15 on Chrome 56

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

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    lol yup, just saw it. Should be 889, not 89. Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Congrats on getting the review out on day one!

    Blender 2.78 chart has wrong result number for 1300X.

    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11658/8919...
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    We always get CPU reviews out on day one... ;)
    Blender is fixed.
    Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Another chart that needs a little bit of edit - "Title" at the bottom.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11658/combined_cp...
    Reply
  • jjj - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    For value,in the real world mixed or lightly threaded should have more weigh, especially in the lower end where low core count and lower clocks can be a limitation.
    For power, when comparing diff numbers of cores , the system power is important too- lets say you can have a dual core system at 60W vs a quad at 70W peak. Even if the dual core is more efficient, at the system level the quad wins.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Performance is nice and price is good IF you have a dGPU. For entry-level gaming/HTPC builds, that Intel IGP is more valuable than most people think, especially given the amount of media decode/encode power it has. All you need is i3 and you can be watching Netflix 4K or UHD Blu-ray and then switch to playing 1080p 60fps Rocket League. You can do the latter with R3 if you buy a dGPU, but sadly there's no current way to do Netflix or UHD Blu-ray without Intel SGX. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I think that's why AMD also picked this time to release Bristol Ridge Reply
  • mczak - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Yes, imho these cpus are only mildly interesting.
    In this cpu performance segment, chances are pretty high that a integrated gpu would be good enough. (Sure there's always someone who has a need for high cpu / low gpu, or low cpu / high gpu performance, but I don't think that's the norm.)
    So, if a integrated gpu is good enough, with factoring in the cost of an additional gpu amd can't compete on price here. The really interesting competition from AMD in this lower end market has to come from Raven Ridge APUs.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    In the wise words of Peter Klavin, "Totes McGotes." Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Done! Thanks.

    When should I come back for the full review?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now