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

545 Comments

View All Comments

  • RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Hardware unboxed certainly did. It's a bit odd that you automatically assume that only Anandtech knows how to test. Reply
  • aliquis - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    If they don't rerun the tests with up to date software then they are useless.

    What I assume has happened here is some software, driver or firmware being "off" in the Anandtech review somehow.
    Reply
  • RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    @Ryan Smith That is an excellent response. Reply
  • krumme - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    AT run bm at Jdec specs. 2666 for 8700k 2933 for 2700x. That and the security patches. Reply
  • Hifihedgehog - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    I was also totally misled. I came here first, only to find out after having misleading people online that this site’s results are completely off. I am a big AMD fan but these results need to be audited and corrected. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    "these results need to be audited and corrected."

    Validating right now.=)
    Reply
  • stefanve - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Clearly someone didn't apply his meltdown patch .... Reply
  • casperes1996 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Advice for the future:

    Don't be a prick.
    Ian isn't lying to you. He's sharing the data his benchmarking showed. It being different to other reviewers is something he'll gladly look into, and is in fact looking into, but you ought to show yourself as a respectful individual when you point it out, otherwise you won't be listened to.
    Reply
  • MadManMark - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Hear, hear! Reply
  • bfoster68 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Chris113q,

    I did one for you since you seemed to be having issues.
    If you read below they use a different methodology for estimating fps vs what AnandTech did in their review. the result is nearly the same. solid gains for AMD on a incremental upgrade. Was that so hard?

    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now