Chromium Compile: Windows VC++ Compile of Chrome

A large number of AnandTech readers are software engineers, looking at how the hardware they use performs. While compiling a Linux kernel is ‘standard’ for the reviewers who often compile, our test is a little more varied – we are using the windows instructions to compile Chrome, specifically a Chrome 56 build from March 2017, as that was when we built the test. Google quite handily gives instructions on how to compile with Windows, along with a 400k file download for the repo. This is by far one of our most popular benchmarks, and is a good measure of core performance, multithreading performance, and also memory accesses.

In our test, using Google’s instructions, we use the MSVC compiler and ninja developer tools to manage the compile. As you may expect, the benchmark is variably threaded, with a mix of DRAM requirements that benefit from faster caches. Data procured in our test is the time taken for the compile, which we convert into compiles per day. The benchmark takes anywhere from an hour on a fast single high-end desktop processor to several hours on the slowest offerings.

Compile Chromium (Rate)

Prior to this test, the two CPUs battling it out for supremacy were the 16-core Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, and the 8-core i9-9900K. By adding six more cores, a lot more frequency, and two more memory channels, the Core i9-9990XE plows through this test very easily, perfoming the compile in 42 minutes and 10 seconds, and is the only processor to broach the 50 minute mark, let alone the 45 minute mark. 

The Intel Core i9-9990XE Review CPU Performance: Rendering Tests
POST A COMMENT

143 Comments

View All Comments

  • willis936 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    >but also pay experts and specialists to tune those systems for high latency

    I believe this should read "low latency".
    Reply
  • jospoortvliet - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Yup. And while correcting:
    > Against AMD counterparts, that 5.0 GHz frequency carves through anything like butter.

    That is rather optimistic... the Intel is frequently bested by the 3700x and especially the 3900x - I would expect a 3950X might even win the majority of tests run here.
    Reply
  • jospoortvliet - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    I went ahead and did a quick count:
    * 3900X has 13 wins (7 more than 10%)
    * 9990XE has 21 wins (10 more than 10%)

    Now obviously the 9990XE is faster, but it better be with 2 more cores and 5 ghz and 400 watt power use and a price - well... ;-)

    But it sure isn't the slam dunk it is described at - Ian writes like this monster wins in >90% of the tests, which it doesn't, not by a long shot. If it was readily available at $600 and had a TDP of 140W, I'd call it a winner, even if it doesn't *always* win. But if intel has to go THIS extreme and still loses in over 1/3rd of the graphs here at Anandtech, it is more a show of weakness if anything.

    And all that while we await the 3950X and new gen Threadripper - it is good for Intel that they weren't out yet and part of the benchmark, otherwise the halo would be even harder to make out...
    Reply
  • Netmsm - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Agree;
    I expected to read a completely impartial review, like always, but I feel some sort of inclination to bold strengths in a way that a true discussion of 9990xe's weaknesses is out of favor!
    Reply
  • jgraham11 - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    Agreed!

    Look at that amazing performance at 250W (which will probably run even hotter, just like the 9900k "stock (95W)" vs out of box settings(140W+)

    Compared to the AMD 3900X at half the power(105W), that thing is a heater!

    Same story as all the other recent articles about Intel chips:
    Intel runs old games better, runs hotter, consumes more power, higher clock speed!

    AMD runs new games better, runs cooler, consumes less power (in this case half at least), runs applications better
    Reply
  • ballsystemlord - Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - link

    I agree too. Ian was too excited when writing this review.

    I'm more concerned that we'll have to stare at this processor in the lineup from now on as each AMD TR3 processor is covered. That's totally unfair because this CPU is for auction only and in limited supply permanently.
    Thus it'll look like Intel wins everything all the time. And then there are the people who will call this site a shill site because of that...
    Reply
  • NikosD - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    The whole article is another desperate move from Intel, just a few weeks before AMD releases Ryzen 3950X 16C/32T and new Threadripper 3rd gen.
    Unfortunately they found Anandtech and Dr. Ian Cutress again, to support their pathetic effort with some credibility.
    And suddenly after publishing this kind of article, the problem moves from Intel's side to Anandtech's side.
    My condolences.
    Reply
  • peevee - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    "This ultra-rare thing isn’t sold to consumers – Intel only sells it to select partners, and even then it is only sold via an auction, once per quarter, with no warranty from Intel."

    Pathetic strategy for bragging rights only...
    Reply
  • fackamato - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    I think you're in the wrong forums?

    Of course people will buy this if it brings value to them versus the price they have to pay.
    Reply
  • bananaforscale - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link

    Sure, if value == bragging rights. Or if they have more money than sense. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now