CPU Performance: 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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

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A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google.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 ThreadedGeekbench 4 - MT Overall

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

GeekBench4: Synthetics

A common tool for cross-platform testing between mobile, PC, and Mac, GeekBench 4 is an ultimate exercise in synthetic testing across a range of algorithms looking for peak throughput. Tests include encryption, compression, fast Fourier transform, memory operations, n-body physics, matrix operations, histogram manipulation, and HTML parsing.

I’m including this test due to popular demand, although the results do come across as overly synthetic, and a lot of users often put a lot of weight behind the test due to the fact that it is compiled across different platforms (although with different compilers).

We record the main subtest scores (Crypto, Integer, Floating Point, Memory) in our benchmark database, but for the review we post the overall single and multi-threaded results.

Geekbench 4 - ST OverallGeekbench 4 - MT Overall

CPU Performance: Encoding Tests Gaming: World of Tanks enCore
Comments Locked

249 Comments

View All Comments

  • destorofall - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    you sound butthurt
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Heaven forbid his data set of God knows how many CPU doesn't include the one you want to see...

    Damn, you really should demand a refund.
  • LMonty - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    You should really file a complaint, buddy. Gotta fight for your rights. ;P
  • jimbo2779 - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link

    What has happened to the comments section here. Can we go back to just ignoring the ignoramus'. It often means they just go away.
  • psychobriggsy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    It was mentioned that Intel didn't even send these CPUs out for review, and that they're hard to obtain because Intel isn't making many of them.

    However, a few more data points would be nice. I think Ian needs to set up a system test datacentre like Phoronix so the rebuilding is kept to a minimum!
  • twizzlebizzle22 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    AMD must have sent the 7700k or specified it's use. I've noticed every review using that specific CPU. AMD aiming for the used market upgraders it seems.
  • amrnuke - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    I believe that's the last Intel chip that was 4C/8T as well, right? Seems a fair comparison, I guess if AMD really think that's the market.

    Anyway, TechPowerUp went ahead and lined up the 3300X against a bunch of other relevant chips (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-330... It's 1% slower than the 3600 at 720P gaming, 16.5% slower than the 9900K at 720P gaming.

    CPU tests show the 4C/8T 3300X holding up well to the 6C/6T 8600K and 9400F. It pretty well trounces the 9100F.

    The 3100 beats the 9100F by 14% in CPU tests.
  • schujj07 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    720p gaming isn't even relevant. If these were iGPU tests then sure, but even a GTX 1050 can do better than 720p gaming.
  • supdawgwtfd - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Are you stupid?

    To test CPU performance you run lower resolution to ensure the CPU is the bottleneck
    Your comment is not relevant.
  • schujj07 - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    Hence why most review sites use 1080p. 720p benchmarking on modern hardware is akin to Quake 3 benchmarking at 640x480 resolution back in 2000. All you end up seeing are crazy high numbers that don't mean anything. We see it all the time that CPU A is faster at 720p but then slower at 1080p?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now