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A popular web test for several years, but now no longer being updated, is Octane, developed by Google.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

  • alufan - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    just curious if I follow the "bench" link it shows Intel at the top of the stack in the opening page, yet when I choose to look at the actual results with the drop down then the results change, yet the opening page is from a benchmark in which the Thread ripper has not even been tested on, the whole industry recognises that its probably the single fastest chip out there for the HEDT platform yet your opening page shows Intel at the top and no 2020 results, once again this looks like careful manipulation of the results and the casual viewer dropping on the page just sees the top 4 out of 6 positions taken by Intel with TR2 mixed in and no mention of TR3 not a very fair page and it gives a poor impression and a possibly misleading impression to folks who know no better and instantly get the impression Intel sells the highest performing CPUs which we know is not the case anymore
  • qwertymac93 - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    There are two versions of "bench" for CPUs. "CPU" & "CPU 2019". You need the 2019 one to see the more recent results.
  • alufan - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    and thats what I did clicked the link in the article and ended up with a page showing intel as having all the top spots which we all know is no longer the case...that was my point the opening summary page should reflect the results not the results of 2 years ago, and its now month5 of 2020 not 2019 "latest" results should be 2020
  • zodiacfml - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    This 3300x is something beats the six core 2600. In some reviews, it is equal to 3600 in games while a slightly behind in rendering tasks. I have already decided that a six-core is minimum for me since the 1600 but this...
  • andrewaggb - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    It's pretty good for what it is but for a cheap PC, intel has graphics. For a cheap gaming PC it's a bargain now but probably won't age well with 8 core consoles coming out this year. If you can afford the 3700x (or better), that should last 8+ years for gaming.
  • Tchamber - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    The Ryzen 3 3200G had preside graphics, too.
  • ahenriquedsj - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    Good job.
  • Mugur - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    Ian, sorry to say this, but you must find another organisation for you. Anandtech is just the ghost of what it was. You need at least what every youtuber has to conduct a decent set of benchmarks. You need to buy cpus, videocards, etc. for decent testbeds when they not sampled to you. I'm sick of seeing obscure outfits with every cpu and gpu possible, while a real expert is using a 1080 etc.
  • Rudde - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    Will you update the conclusion to include 3100?
  • lmcd - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link

    That board compatibility diagram must be flawed because my B350 board from ASRock has validated support for everything in the 3XXX series.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now