HEDT Benchmarks: Web and Legacy Tests

While more the focus of low-end and small form factor systems, web-based benchmarks are notoriously difficult to standardize. Modern web browsers are frequently updated, with no recourse to disable those updates, and as such there is difficulty in keeping a common platform. The fast paced nature of browser development means that version numbers (and performance) can change from week to week. Despite this, web tests are often a good measure of user experience: a lot of what most office work is today revolves around web applications, particularly email and office apps, but also interfaces and development environments. Our web tests include some of the industry standard tests, as well as a few popular but older tests.

We have also included our legacy benchmarks in this section, representing a stack of older code for popular benchmarks.

WebXPRT 3: Modern Real-World Web Tasks, including AI

The company behind the XPRT test suites, Principled Technologies, has recently released the latest web-test, and rather than attach a year to the name have just called it ‘3’. This latest test (as we started the suite) has built upon and developed the ethos of previous tests: user interaction, office compute, graph generation, list sorting, HTML5, image manipulation, and even goes as far as some AI testing.

For our benchmark, we run the standard test which goes through the benchmark list seven times and provides a final result. We run this standard test four times, and take an average.

Users can access the WebXPRT test at http://principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/

WebXPRT 3 (2018)

WebXPRT 2015: HTML5 and Javascript Web UX Testing

The older version of WebXPRT is the 2015 edition, which focuses on a slightly different set of web technologies and frameworks that are in use today. This is still a relevant test, especially for users interacting with not-the-latest web applications in the market, of which there are a lot. Web framework development is often very quick but with high turnover, meaning that frameworks are quickly developed, built-upon, used, and then developers move on to the next, and adjusting an application to a new framework is a difficult arduious task, especially with rapid development cycles. This leaves a lot of applications as ‘fixed-in-time’, and relevant to user experience for many years.

Similar to WebXPRT3, the main benchmark is a sectional run repeated seven times, with a final score. We repeat the whole thing four times, and average those final scores.

WebXPRT15

Speedometer 2: Javascript Frameworks

Our newest web test is Speedometer 2, which is a accrued test over a series of javascript frameworks to do three simple things: built a list, enable each item in the list, and remove the list. All the frameworks implement the same visual cues, but obviously apply them from different coding angles.

Our test goes through the list of frameworks, and produces a final score indicative of ‘rpm’, one of the benchmarks internal metrics. We report this final score.

Speedometer 2

Google Octane 2.0: Core Web Compute

A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google. Version 2.0 of the test performs the best part of two-dozen compute related tasks, such as regular expressions, cryptography, ray tracing, emulation, and Navier-Stokes physics calculations.

The test gives each sub-test a score and produces a geometric mean of the set as a final result. We run the full benchmark four times, and average the final results.

Google Octane 2.0

Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Core Web Compute

Even older than Octane is Kraken, this time developed by Mozilla. This is an older test that does similar computational mechanics, such as audio processing or image filtering. Kraken seems to produce a highly variable result depending on the browser version, as it is a test that is keenly optimized for.

The main benchmark runs through each of the sub-tests ten times and produces an average time to completion for each loop, given in milliseconds. We run the full benchmark four times and take an average of the time taken.

Mozilla Kraken 1.1

3DPM v1: Naïve Code Variant of 3DPM v2.1

The first legacy test in the suite is the first version of our 3DPM benchmark. This is the ultimate naïve version of the code, as if it was written by scientist with no knowledge of how computer hardware, compilers, or optimization works (which in fact, it was at the start). This represents a large body of scientific simulation out in the wild, where getting the answer is more important than it being fast (getting a result in 4 days is acceptable if it’s correct, rather than sending someone away for a year to learn to code and getting the result in 5 minutes).

In this version, the only real optimization was in the compiler flags (-O2, -fp:fast), compiling it in release mode, and enabling OpenMP in the main compute loops. The loops were not configured for function size, and one of the key slowdowns is false sharing in the cache. It also has long dependency chains based on the random number generation, which leads to relatively poor performance on specific compute microarchitectures.

3DPM v1 can be downloaded with our 3DPM v2 code here: 3DPMv2.1.rar (13.0 MB)

3DPM v1 Single Threaded3DPM v1 Multi-Threaded

x264 HD 3.0: Older Transcode Test

This transcoding test is super old, and was used by Anand back in the day of Pentium 4 and Athlon II processors. Here a standardized 720p video is transcoded with a two-pass conversion, with the benchmark showing the frames-per-second of each pass. This benchmark is single-threaded, and between some micro-architectures we seem to actually hit an instructions-per-clock wall.

x264 HD 3.0 Pass 1x264 HD 3.0 Pass 2

HEDT Benchmarks: Encoding Tests Power Consumption, TDP, and Prime95 vs POV-Ray
POST A COMMENT

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • HStewart - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    "I highly highly doubt that Intel would postpone 10nm just to “shut down AMD""

    Probably right - AMD is not that big of threat in the real world - just go in to BestBuy - yes they have some game machines. a very few laptops including older generations
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    That is some impressive goalpost moving that you just did *on your own claim*.

    Intel's issues have nothing to do with AMD, but they will allow a resurgent AMD to become more competitive over time. Pointing to how little of a threat AMD are *right now* and/or making up weird conspiracy theories that place Intel as the only mover and shaker in the entire industry won't change that.
    Reply
  • Relic74 - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link

    Consumer based computers is but a small portion of the market. Servers, millions of them needed every year to fill the demand needed by, well, everyone who hosts a site, government, networking farms a mile long, etc. The server market is huge and is growing almost faster than tech companies can provide. It's why I always thought Apple getting out if the server market was kind of a stupid ideal. All of the servers they ever created were sold before they were even created. I guess the margains were to small for them, greedy bastards. Why only make double the profits when you make 5x with consumer products. Seriously, an iPhone X costs less than $200 to make now, it used to be $250 but now its $200, greedy bastards. Oh, did you know it costs Apple less than $3 to go from 64GB to 128GB, ugh. Reply
  • Ozymankos - Sunday, January 27, 2019 - link

    it matters what you consider as costs
    do you calculate the shipping costs,the marketing costs,the salaries of everyone involved,the making of new facilities?
    Reply
  • Eastman - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    Intel isn't finished. They are still king of single thread performance. We will see if Zen 2 will surpass Intel's single thread performance. Reply
  • seanlivingstone - Monday, August 13, 2018 - link

    Do you know that Jensen Huang is Lisa Su's uncle? Intel is done. Reply
  • f1nalpr1m3 - Thursday, October 25, 2018 - link

    Expected Results vs Actual:
    Stats Expected Q3 2018 Results Actual Q3 2018 Results
    Revenue($B) $18.1 $19.2
    EPS $1.15 $1.40
    Reply
  • UnNameless - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    Sadly this is true. AMD tries hard and in the most part succeeds. Intel frankly showed some kind of panic for the niche market of top end processors with that chilled fiasco of a 5 GHz CPU. This means AMD puts quite some pressure onto them Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Tuesday, August 14, 2018 - link

    AMD have bounced back very quickly . Mostly because people are starting to accept how over priced intel have been
    https://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-amd-ryzen-c...
    Reply
  • twtech - Wednesday, August 15, 2018 - link

    I don't think branding issues is going to stop purchases of AMD chips when they are the best fit for a particular use-case, but the lack of direct access to memory for half of the cores in the 2990wx is going to keep it from being the knockout punch for HEDT that it could have been.

    Looking at these benchmark results, that has seriously gimped the performance of the 32-core TR to the point where it is slower than the 16 core in some threaded workloads.

    Sure, you can just go ahead and buy the 16-core 2950x instead, but then you're reduced back to being in 7980xe territory - albeit at a cheaper price point - but the point is, it's not the clear win that a relatively high clocked 32-core CPU probably could have been without the memory access issue.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now