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
Comments Locked

545 Comments

View All Comments

  • ACE76 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    AMD is going to unleash some serious tech next year with Ryzen 2 on 7nm...this is just a refresh of the original Ryzen...the real deal will be next April/May...Intel is in for a rough ride.
  • tmiller02 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    the patches are the difference.. which everyone should do on intel machines.. the fact is they came with a performance hit! AMD is now leading the pack... security over performance any day!
  • Dr. Swag - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    I've seen other sites do their tests with the patches. I'm just not certain if they went back and rested older cpus or not...
  • Lolimaster - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    You can be sure most didn't.
  • fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Most didn’t patch

    Look at techradar who did -they too are showing massive losses for Intel
  • Luckz - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link

    Techradar's review is some form of manipulation. They don't even show the test system specs for the comparison scores. In their 8700K review they wrote the CPU hit 76° for them at stock and 87° OC; in the 2700X review they wrote that the 8700K only went up to 52°(!!!). That CPU literally had its handbrake™ pulled.
  • Ranger1065 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Thank you for an informative and timely review.
  • T1beriu - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    What workload was used during per core power consumption tables?
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Prime95
  • Luckz - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link

    Assuming that means the non-AVX version, with that tool it makes sense to clarify.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now