All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=620844

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg_OuhrQoM


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

win-zenbook

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


=== Bisection aborted ===
The bisect was aborted because The metric values for the initial "good" and "bad" revisions do not represent a clear regression.
Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error.

=== Warnings ===
The following warnings were raised by the bisect job:

 * Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence.

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N   Good?
chromium@399973  1727.0   20.3582  12  good
chromium@400004  1728.82  31.229   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 620844

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 0.20%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/195
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9009668431020789568


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5881165026689024

| O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq
|  X  | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback,
| / \ | file a bug with component Tests>AutoBisect.  Thank you!

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


=== Bisection aborted ===
The bisect was aborted because The metric values for the initial "good" and "bad" revisions do not represent a clear regression.
Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error.

=== Warnings ===
The following warnings were raised by the bisect job:

 * Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence.

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N   Good?
chromium@399973  1977.24  144.755  12  good
chromium@400004  1963.76  82.865   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 620844

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 2.95%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/196
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9009668425506013776


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5887236231397376

| O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq
|  X  | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback,
| / \ | file a bug with component Tests>AutoBisect.  Thank you!

I feel this may be an invalid regression because the reference build has regressed in the same magnitude and at the same time which usually means that this is not a real regression but a change in the device/infrastructure.

I saw multiple other alerts for win-zenbook device on the same metric that were the same.

Agreed with #4, WontFix