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
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • DillholeMcRib - Monday, November 4, 2019 - link

    Some of you peeps seem really, REALLY bored. Do you make all these comments while at work?
  • Retycint - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    This is a niche CPU for an extremely niche market. That is all. Nobody (except people in that tiny niche) is looking to buy this CPU.
  • AshlayW - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Sure it is, so go and buy an i3-9350K for (probably) 1% the price, and have the same single-threaded performance. If you want 14-cores, you're likely going to be doing multi-threaded work, you get my drift?

    This product has a small niche where you work on both types, and somehow need the 5-10% more ST perf the 9990XE has, over, say the 3950X which will boost to 4.7 on a single core at vastly (and this is a huuuge under-statement) lower power draw and price.

    Proponents of Intel claim that Single-threaded speed is so important (because, hey, that 5% is all they have these days) but don't seem to understand that Zen2 has absolutely fantastic single-threaded performance. Within 10% of Intel's best, thanks to slightly higher IPC, and the clock speeds on 1T boost get up there in the high 4 GHz area, too.
  • vanilla_gorilla - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    >(because, hey, that 5% is all they have these days)

    And it's 5% on single threaded tasks that are instantaneous on our desktop PC. I don't have any desire to have 5% more performance there. What I want is the +30-50% performance on multithreaded tasks that have real, wall clock times that can be improved, which is what Ryzen delivers. Who cares if an Intel CPU has 5% better javascript when everything I do in my web browser is instantaneous? So instead of 15ms its 13ms? Ok? What blows my mind is when my kernel compiles or video encoding times are shaved off by MINUTES.
  • Retycint - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    I love how people are turning this into Intel vs AMD, even when this is an extremely niche CPU for an extremely niche market.

    >Who cares if an Intel CPU has 5% better JavaScript?
    Well apparently people who buy these care. You are irrelevant to the discussion because you were never part of the target market for this anyway
  • HollyDOL - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    In scenarios where 'winner takes it all' those 5% are more than enough. Previously I worked on algorithmic trading and there it would be worth every cent.
  • ET - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    > Against AMD counterparts, that 5.0 GHz frequency carves through anything like butter.

    From the benchmarks, it lost to the 12 cores 3900X on more than one occasion. While it's true that for specific workloads the 9990XE would be much better, on average it seems to definitely not be worth the price. Also, comparisons to Zen 2 EPYC CPUs (or Threadrippers, which will soon be released) would be much more apt.
  • - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    I was thinking the same. Even if I don’t take the power draw into account I am not impressed at all. And at 600W I would expect this to destroy the 3900X, so these results are actually quite embarrassing for Intel. I personally would rather wait for a 16 core Zen 3 AND pay for it than have this one for free.
  • Retycint - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Well I'll gladly take this one for free... Infinite perf-to-price ratio (x performance over $0 price)
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    You may however have to factor in a new motherboard, and new cooling as well.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now