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

  • uibo - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I thought you guys hated misleading scales on graphs.
    Looking at the performance per dollar graphs, I think the lowest point vertically should be -100%
    Reply
  • lefenzy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    That's silly. 0% is the zero on that graph, not some arbitrary -100% Reply
  • akrobet - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Keep in mind that Intel is pulling the G4560 from the market, because it's "too good" for its price. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Source? Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Not counting it as a "source" but I saw this pop up at wccftech. I didn't spend any time looking, but I haven't stumbled upon any corroboration on other sites in my tech reading. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I just found the article on wccftech. It actually said that Intel is NOT killing off the G4560 Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    wccftech

    ....

    ....

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    Reply
  • GreenMeters - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    SHED does not exist. Ryzen 7 maps to the standard i7 market that has never been called HEDT. Threadripper is HEDT. The fact that it puts Intel's HEDT to shame doesn't mean it's a new segment. It means Intel better get with the program. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ryzen 7 was mapped against Intel's Broadwell-E HEDT platform at launch for core count, performance, and aggressive pricing. Threadripper is a stage above that, and isn't even called HEDT internally at AMD. Then we have the HCC core count silicon coming from Intel. SHED exists. Reply
  • DrKlahn - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ok I'm seriously beginning to wonder about the objectivity here. So your conclude this:

    "First is that the Ryzen 3 1200 does not look like an attractive option. It performs +2-3% of the Pentium but is $30 more expensive, and the Core i3-7100 beats it by 8% for only a sub-$10 cost."

    But aren't mentioning that the Pentiums are locked parts and the 1200 isn't? Your competing sites do have overclocking data and the Pentiums are hopelessly outclassed. Granted not everyone overclocks, but on an enthusiast site that at least warrants a mention. Not everyone will read your followup(s) and that conclusion does not tell the full story. I know if I was building a machine a 1200 4 core that overclocks to 3.8-4GHz is well worth the $30.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now