All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=700845

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDgtOn7vAoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8985241250295104304

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

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : startup.warm.blank_page
  Metric       : window_display_time/window_display_time

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@453923      78.0476 +- 6.9966       21      good
chromium@453979      78.7619 +- 11.3934      21      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=2 --also-run-disabled-tests startup.warm.blank_page

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8985241250295104304

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5907718835011584


| 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 Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!

Actual does seem to have regressed in the range however ref also moved (although more than actual) and the bisect failed. In light of that I'm going to close WontFix.