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

145 Comments

View All Comments

  • phexac - Wednesday, October 30, 2019 - link

    “That's just a bunch of hogwash. You couldn't dig a straight line from Chicago to Jersey. It's just fancy sounding hogwash meant to convince those without the logic or background to see it for the hogwash it is. It's no more true than grimm's fairy tales.“

    I love how the less a particular poster knows about this issue, the angrier they get and the more certain they sound about the nonsense they spout.
    Reply
  • Slash3 - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    The secret DIMMs look like the same Samsung B-die based G.Skill ARES used in their 9900K blade.

    https://www.servethehome.com/icc-vega-r-116i-revie...
    Reply
  • colonelclaw - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    I dunno, it may be absolutely terrible value for money, and not even obtainable by pretty much the entire world's population, but I do like it when a tech company does something because they can, not because they should. It's this sort of attitude that keeps us all evolving. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    At the end of the day, life is all about bragging rights. I'd never buy this, but I'd love to have it! Reply
  • mooninite - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Why would you love to have it? Just because it is an Intel CPU? The same company that has *hardware* security vulnerabilities? A much cheaper Ryzen system is shown to be just as fast as this product... Reply
  • Retycint - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    It's really amusing to see how some people get so triggered over the mere mention of Intel Reply
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    It's shocking to see support for Intel, even though their name is a shorthand for the intelligence agencies! Reply
  • Retycint - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 - link

    It's also very amusing to see you immediately assume I'm an Intel supporter Reply
  • 29a - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    That's a strange take on life. Reply
  • colonelclaw - Monday, October 28, 2019 - link

    Exactly! It's just a bit of fun. As a product, it would be useless for my day job, but an absolute hoot in my gaming pc back at home. Who cares that it's pointless, and overpriced by a factor of five? I'm never going to buy it, and neither is anybody else here. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now