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


View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    It depends on the commenter. :D Sites get accused of being everything week to week. Reply
  • Dr. Swag - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    Fanboys gonna fanboy Reply
  • Gastec - Saturday, October 14, 2017 - link

    You mean "orthodox"? :) Reply
  • prisonerX - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    The only time we're going to get a fair review of an Intel product is when they no longer dominate the market.

    It's just the reality of how things work.
  • Ranger1065 - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    +1 Reply
  • rtho782 - Friday, October 6, 2017 - link

    Eh, as 8700k is currently unobtainium, it doesn't really matter, as I'm sure the review will be finished by the time it's possible to buy!! Reply
  • Zingam - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    The only problem you don't have a coffee this morning and the coffee shops are closed. You are feeling the smell but it is only in your imagination. Reply
  • watzupken - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Not sure why there is no R5 1600 in the test though. It will be good to see how the 6 cores solution compete. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    We chose a dozen processors we thought would be best for the review graphs.
    As mentioned on every results page, you can find the other data in our Benchmark database, Bench.
  • yeeeeman - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Well, you either have bad inspiration or you chose the CPUs from AMD that most people won't buy.
    You are missing R7 1700 and R5 1600 which are ~ same as new Intel offerings in computing tasks but they cost less. So...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now