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.

WebXPRT 3: Modern Real-World Web Tasks, including AI

The company behind the XPRT test suites, Principled Technologies, has recently released the latest web-test, and rather than attach a year to the name have just called it ‘3’. This latest test (as we started the suite) has built upon and developed the ethos of previous tests: user interaction, office compute, graph generation, list sorting, HTML5, image manipulation, and even goes as far as some AI testing.

For our benchmark, we run the standard test which goes through the benchmark list seven times and provides a final result. We run this standard test four times, and take an average.

Users can access the WebXPRT test at http://principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/

WebXPRT 3 (2018)

WebXPRT 2015: HTML5 and Javascript Web UX Testing

The older version of WebXPRT is the 2015 edition, which focuses on a slightly different set of web technologies and frameworks that are in use today. This is still a relevant test, especially for users interacting with not-the-latest web applications in the market, of which there are a lot. Web framework development is often very quick but with high turnover, meaning that frameworks are quickly developed, built-upon, used, and then developers move on to the next, and adjusting an application to a new framework is a difficult arduous task, especially with rapid development cycles. This leaves a lot of applications as ‘fixed-in-time’, and relevant to user experience for many years.

Similar to WebXPRT3, the main benchmark is a sectional run repeated seven times, with a final score. We repeat the whole thing four times, and average those final scores.

WebXPRT15

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 Threaded3DPM v1 Multi-Threaded

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
POST A COMMENT

201 Comments

View All Comments

  • Devo2007 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    First page "As we move into 2019" - should be "As we move into 2020" Reply
  • plp1980 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Is says as we move "through" not as we move "into" Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    It did originally say "into". We've since fixed it.=) Reply
  • Netmsm - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    Ryan, why isn't there any Cinebench test?! Reply
  • TheJian - Wednesday, November 20, 2019 - link

    Because nobody uses it as Intel said (nobody is 1% or less right?)? Nobody making money is using something that is far slower that PAID products. Pointless to benchmark this in every review, just like it's pointless to test 4k in all vid card reviews when nobody is using that either (ok, nobody here means less than 2%...LOL). Whatever. Surely Ryan is chomping at the bit now to tell me 4k is the new enthusiast standard...LOL. Yeah, wake me when 1440p is, as it still isn't LONG after you said that at 660ti article. Still not even 5% years later, heck, both added up don't hit 7% last I checked (month ago?). 1080p however? 65% of users of 130mil steam gamers (this is pretty accurate for the world elsewhere no doubt). Should test LOADS of 1080p games, and maybe benchmark 1/2 at 1440p, only 1-2 at 4k if at all (should be done once a year or in a separate review of 4k yearly?). Until people use it, quit wasting time.

    Anandtech (and many others) seem to do a lot of testing that is NOT how a user would do use their PC. Handbrake crap quality etc. Who uses FAST? FASTER? You blind already so blur doesn't matter? Cinebench freeware same story. Intel seems to have a point though they didn't mind before losing massively on all these things they are now whining about.

    https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hard...
    Yep, still right, not even 5% yet for 1440p, 7% accurate total 4k+1440p still...LOL. Keep dreaming ryan ;)
    Reply
  • Netmsm - Sunday, November 24, 2019 - link

    impertinent words! These are not the answer.
    Everybody who works on editing films knows how helpful the Cinebench tests are in specifying which CPU will be faster.
    Reply
  • alysdexia - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link

    shall be swifter Reply
  • peevee - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link

    "Anandtech (and many others) seem to do a lot of testing that is NOT how a user would do use their PC."

    Absolutely. And all their tests get the same amount of space. Including those nobody can use or reproduce. BS all the time, like off-screen rendering, compute on Dolphin emulator, in-house 3DPM... Ancient codecs, irrelevant settings... Somebody needs to bring them back into reality.
    Reply
  • Netmsm - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link

    Also, in section "x264 HD 3.0: Older Transcode Test" the result of "3DPM v1 Multi-Threaded" is mistakenly placed instead of "x264 HD 3.0 Pass 2". Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    "I’m sure some people will disagree about those 50 MHz"

    We call those people "whiny bitches who should STFU".
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now