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

221 Comments

View All Comments

  • Zingam - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    Not everybody has a rich daddy! Performance per dollar matters in all areas of life!
    It doesn't matter to very, very rich people or sucker fanboys!
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link

    Again the myth that rich people don't care about wasting money. So wrong. :D As for fanboyism, that kind of label gets hurled in both directions, but IRL has little meaning. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    an overlcocked ryzen 1700 is bit for bit the best choice.. still.
    except for hardcore gamers.

    and i bet intel paid you quite a bit to ignore stuff other (less intel biased) reviewers pointed out today.
    Reply
  • mkaibear - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Ryzen has no integrated GPU so it can't be the best choice for anyone without a discrete GPU (aka the vast majority of the market - about 70% as per q1 2017). Ironically the gamers are the ones more likely to snap up Ryzen as they have discrete graphics cards anyway... Reply
  • Ananke - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    I see the same, ryzen 1700 remains the best buy, followed by ryzen 1600, which recent batches seems to have 8 cores instead of 6, for around $170. They do come with heatsink, another $30 saved. With ok board it will total $250. Even better, readily built Dell gaming desktops can achieve around $800 with r580 8gb and 16 GB ram with 1700 ryzen vs above $1100 for similar Intel. It is literally no brainer choice Reply
  • Gastec - Saturday, October 14, 2017 - link

    Wow there, rewind! "Ryzen 1600, which recent batches seems to have 8 cores instead of 6". Care to explain more? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    "and i bet intel paid you quite a bit to ignore stuff other (less intel biased) reviewers pointed out today."

    You'd lose that bet.

    Now since we're apparently doing this Jeopardy style, please tell me how much you wagered so that I know how much I'm collecting. Since Intel isn't paying me, you will have to do. ;-)

    In all seriousness though, taking sides and taking bribes would be a terrible way to run a business. Trust is everything, so losing the trust of you guys (the readers) would be about the worst possible thing we could do.
    Reply
  • FourEyedGeek - Saturday, October 7, 2017 - link

    Are you happy for an overclocked Ryzen 1700 to be compared against overclocked Intel processors as well? Reply
  • gnufied - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Your bench pages are either loading very slowly or displaying Gateway timeout. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 5, 2017 - link

    Thanks. Having the server team look into it. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now