All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=659851

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgvcWmugoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-nvidia

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997693828417802496

===== 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@427451  61.9143  0.873303  18  good
chromium@427506  61.7097  0.719442  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 659851

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases
Test Metric: energy_consumption_mwh/energy_consumption_mwh
Relative Change: 1.41%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64nvidia_perf_bisect/builds/1938
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997693828417802496


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5833744148070400

| 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!

Will kick off a new bisect with a wider range. Regression may be temporary blip.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997627670864457136

===== 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@427323  65.825   0.905464  18  good
chromium@427645  65.6944  0.774176  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 659851

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases
Test Metric: energy_consumption_mwh/energy_consumption_mwh
Relative Change: 0.28%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64nvidia_perf_bisect/builds/1939
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997627670864457136


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5336145343283200

| 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 assume the regression is just the bot - bisect cannot reproduce, even with wider range. I've filed a "bad bisect" to get comment on why one bot shows a regression, but bisect bots cannot reproduce. Will follow up when they get back to me... until then, no action to take here.