Question How fast is your browser?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thunng8

Member
Jan 8, 2013
150
53
101
Well, in short this Webbench is useless garbage for use out of boredom. :mask:

Anandtech scores for R5 4650G is 98, and hm R7 5800X received 141.

Ok, but what CPU do i use does anyone have some idea.:grinning:

- browser Google Chrome

View attachment 50750
It all depends on what browser is in use- so it is very important when testing to list the exact versions. For example, Chrome has improved massively since about 90/91 (can't remember exact when there was a big upgrade in the JS speed). That version alone improved these scores by 20%+ compared to the previous one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli

amd6502

Senior member
Apr 21, 2017
971
360
136
As heating season has started up again, I thought it was a good time for some practical retro computing.

I got a score of 18 on a dual core Pentium D 945 (65nm, 3.4GHz, 95W tdp). The runs actually scored 19, but drifted down below 18, either because of heat build up, or because the screen saver might have kicked on.

Browser is not fast but usable (unlike my Kindle fire gen5 quadcore acorn, which scored ), at 18 == 3x the speed of the kindle. The score of 18 is likely comparable to what I'd expect from a 6W Stoney ridge. Ok to check email and basic browsing.

I'm running 64-bit Firefox (either 91esr or 94) in 64-bit debian.

Pentium D started as dual MCM Pentium 4 single core dies (90nm, on an architecture that was designed and shrunk from 130nm process). See hyperlink above for some interesting history. Second gen Pentium D, like the one packed in my super small SFF box used 65nm, and did away with the MCM, putting the two cores on the same die.

I'm guessing the browser performance of this could be improved by a decent % by trying this benchmark again, but on a 32-bit OS and browser.

The P4 architecture is 64-bit compatible (unlike the initial core designs, like the C2D). 64-bit compatibility and higher clock speeds are one of the big advantages over the the C2D that succeeded this era of design. However, though it was 64-bit compatible, I believe priority was given to optimize 32-bit performance, which is why there might** be a performance handycap. ( ** 'might'; to be tested.)

Other interesting tidbits are some interesting novel design elements that they experimented with double pumped ALUs---which is why this little SFF is good as an under the desk space heater / foot warmer.

I get a score of under 6 with Chrome on my Kindle Fire, which uses a low powered acorn quadcore. I suspect the cores might be in-order execution. The IPC feels lower than anything I've seen. Even a P4 will probably run circles around it.
 
Last edited:

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,607
1,725
136
Joe That sure is a nice score from that new Intel.
It damn sure is! Color me suprised, i was not expecting an advance that far.

Completely Apples to Apples comparison same Edge version, run with my veteran SKL based 10900K, also running 5.1Ghz fixed with tiny bit better memory @3900C15

1638037096889.png


Epic advance, good job Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magic Carpet

SlimFan

Member
Jul 5, 2013
87
10
71
Stock 12600K without trying to overclock and the so-called "marketing cores" are still enabled. Oh, and I think it was installing an OS upgrade in the background ... ? Edge 96.0.1054.34 and Windows 11. A score of 259 +/- 3.2 seems pretty healthy.

(also ran it on Chrome and got a score of 275 +/- 4.2 on Chrome 96.0.4664.45, after the OS upgrade finished and the reboot).

Speedometer 2.0.png
 
Last edited:

amd6502

Senior member
Apr 21, 2017
971
360
136
I got a score of 18 on a dual core Pentium D 945
Improvements for netburst going to Firefox 32-bit were less than I expected, but it did help a little. I got a score of 19.1 after installing 32-bit BSD unix and retesting firefox on 32-bit.

I got further improvements (surprisingly slight ones, +0.2) by choosing 2-thread processes over the default 8 thread.

Pentium D 945 gets a final score of 19.3

Other devices+browsers I've tested:

6 --- Kindle Fire (5gen, quadcore)+Chrome

61.2 --- FX-8350** + Brave

77.3 --- FX-8350** + Edge

** I have turbo boost disabled on my FX system as I want to maximize remaining lifetime of this 760g board. (This system runs at full load all the time during heating season, thanks to BOINC, and 760g's really stress the limited set of mosfets in the VRM of such low end boards); because of its good L3, my FX also gets bottom of barrel DDR3 1333 with slow CAS timing)

I think my 2500u laptop scores somewhat below my FX's Brave score, when tested with Firefox, @ 47 .

47 using Firefox ESR (78) on my linix laptop (2500u @ 15w)
I just retested today with recent release of google chrome, and it is dramatically faster than Firfox ESR on the 2500u at a whopping 108 !! (indeed, I think even very different version numbers of chrome will produce different numbers, and even setting like whether you enable hardware acceleration):

b-bench.png

It's really incredible how optimized Chrome is. One could probably put together a nice 64-bit chrome browsing station with an old Phenom tri or quadcore, or even a bottom end station with a dual core K10 era Athlon (maybe even k8 dual core?).

I'm guessing 32-bit Chrome is no longer supported/updated. For anyone running a 32-bit CPU like C2D (including abandoned macbook users) I highly recommend 32-bit BSD unix + Firefox, which are noble holdouts for 32-bit support. Even though Firefox is not as optimized, it's still plenty responsive for cores like C2D, and even Pentium D for most webpages and not too many open tabs.
 
Last edited:

thunng8

Member
Jan 8, 2013
150
53
101
Surprised, that Alder Lake S beats Apple in their own benchmark. Kudos to Intel 👍🏻

My iPhone 13 Pro:
View attachment 53510
It is ironic that Chrome is now significantly faster than Safari in this benchmark.

Running the latest Chrome on an M1 mac scores 290. I checked powermetrics and running this benchmark peaks at 5W for package power on the SOC.
 

Attachments

Harry_Wild

Senior member
Dec 14, 2012
802
143
106
Coming from a 32GB i7 4790 and going to a 32GB i5 9400 CPU, I was pleasantly surprise by the almost instant webpage rendering of the new PC. I just move my old LP 4GB GDRR5 1050 ti over to my new PC. It is like 2X as fast. I plan on replacing the i5 to the top of the line i9-9900K when prices go down. I should of purchased the i9 as soon as I purchased my new PC but waited; and now it is close to $200 more for a brand new i9!:( I do not get that at all!
I can wait on that until it comes down $300 to around the $250 range, and will upgrade my GPU in the mean time to a 6 GDRR6 2060 Super LP when the price falls in January/February 2022.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,607
1,725
136
Chrome / 12900K
Seems Chrome still has edge in this test, despite being on same Chromium engine:
Peak ADL run 5.3/5.0 no HT with highly tuned mem:

1638700614126.png


I think ADL will continue to scale and 350 should be possible with DDR4 4000C15'ish

IF ADL had as tight DDR4 controller as Comet Lake, it would perform at least 5% better over what it does now at same speeds.
 

arcsign

Junior Member
Jul 26, 2009
8
26
91
iPad Pro 12.9 (2021 m1) Safari

5159EE5F-6670-4AA5-B053-BD7A06237C76.jpegD26D250D-D7A8-4CB9-AF3A-292318296FB2.jpeg

281 at 45% battery, unplugged, YouTube and pdf reader in background

293 plugged in, closed stuff in background, close and reopen safari directly to test page
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Magic Carpet

ASK THE COMMUNITY