All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=685787

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDg0KK5pQkM


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

win-zenbook

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8989367820632103696

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
NO Perf regression found

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : media.tough_video_cases
  Metric       : energy_consumption_mwh/energy_consumption_mwh

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@444033      18.875 +- 3.40231       21      good
chromium@444104      19.0884 +- 3.99826      21      bad

To Run This Test
  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

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8989367820632103696

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5863586359934976


| 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!