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A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google.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

  • ksec - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    It was only yday I asked on forum what is happening to Intel 7nm CPU. We know Tiger Lake is coming, then there is Alderlake. And that is it.

    Again, despite all these, AMD needs to "sell" better. The results from their quarterly report are no way near good enough.
  • outsideloop - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Hardware Unboxed includes the 9th Gen i3 and i5 parts against these new Ryzens, in their testing.
  • CrystalCowboy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    About the test setup: No PCIe 4.0 graphics cards. No PCIe 4.0 NVME SSD. You are handicapping these CPUs by not letting them take full advantage of their features. If an older or lesser CPU cannot support these features, well then it deserves to score lower for it. You did use DDR4-3200 RAM, thanks for that.
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Users with a $99 CPU are going to use a PCIe 4.0 SSD? really?
    How do I keep the storage element consistent between tests then, to make sure I'm actually testing the CPU? How do I keep that storage constant for CPUs 10 years ago?
  • Makaveli - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Yup Ian,

    That complaint is ridiculous, almost no one is going PCIe 4 storage in a budget build.

  • MDD1963 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    can't wait for a water block equipped X570 for $800 and the R3-3100 to get the best OC's possible with muh PCI-e 4.0 storage......!!!! :) (Who cares if PCI-e 4.0 drives sometimes fare 1-3% worse than the 970 EVO in some real world comparisons!)
  • eastcoast_pete - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    Maybe it's because after buying a PCIe 4 capable MB and a PCIe 4 SSD, I wouldn't have any money left to buy a CPU for more than $ 100? Kidding, of course, this challenge makes no sense.
    That aside, it would be interesting to see what kind of CPU can actually make good use of PCIe 4 capable MBs and fast storage.
  • Deicidium369 - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    $500 Car w/ $10,000 rims
  • MDD1963 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Yes, PCI-e 4.0 SSDs would have help *so much* on ... gaming frame rates.... <exaggerated overtly obvious eye roll> :)
  • eastcoast_pete - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Thanks Ian! If possible, please add some performance numbers for the current i3 and i5 in. Right now, AMD owns the below $200 space for desktop CPUs. Also, data from other websites that had some i5-9100 on hand show that the 3100 A.K.A AMD's leftover dies, are outperforming Intel's offerings here.
    Really hope Intel steps up, and soon. I'm hoping to buy something later this year, so whoever gives me the most bang for my buck gets my money.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now