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A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google.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

  • paulemannsen - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    @schujj07 Interesting. Your claim sounds totally alien to me, so can you show us some examples where a CPU is significantly slower in 1080p than in 720p when the GPU isnt the bottleneck pls?
  • schujj07 - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link

    Just look at this review and there are a couple examples of this a 720p and 1080p ultra.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link

    @superdawgwtfd - If the resolution is too low then you artificially amplify the differences between CPUs. Meanwhile at 1080p you're testing a resolution people will acttually use for high-frame-rate displays, and a decent GPU is still not going to be the primary limit at that resolution.
  • Fataliity - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    Also a 7700K should be similar to the new 10th gens with same amount of cores. It's same arch / node. Just frequency changes (and I think the low end new ones are saame or slightly lower.
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    7700K was tested last year on the same driver sets. It's been in Bench for a while
  • schujj07 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    The 9100F is 4c/4t with a 3.6/4.2 clock. The 7700k is 4c/8t with a 4.2/4.5 clock. Since both the 7th & 9th gen are both Sky Lake, they will have identical IPC. Based on that we know that the 9100F will perform worse than the 7700k and makes that inclusion pretty pointless. Not to mention that Ian said he never got review samples of the 9th gen i3's. In a lot of the benchmarks we see the R5 1600 & 2600 and the 1600AF will be right between those 2 CPUs in performance. The inclusion of the 4790k and 8086k are nice as they show comparisons from the top 2014 CPU and 2018 CPU. When it comes to single threaded applications, a stock 8086k will be as fast than as a stock 9900k due to having the same boost and IPC. Therefore we are able to extrapolate a lot of data from this whole thing.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link

    You made a succession of excellent points here. Alas, I feel some people would rather use their brain for trolling than for processing the information they claim to want in the course of said trolling.
  • crimson117 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    1600AF performance is identical to the 2600, so just use that.

    3600 is an unfortunate omission.
  • schujj07 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Due to the clock differences between the 2 CPUs that is false. The 1600AF will fall between the 1600 & 2600 in performance.
  • crimson117 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    You're right, not identical, but like 95% the performance at worst and often exactly the same in practice (especially gaming above 1080p): https://www.techspot.com/review/1977-amd-ryzen-160...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now