Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Unleashes the Kraken

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the clashing-with-titans dept.

Firefox 363

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has released the first version a new browser benchmark called Kraken. Mozilla's Robert Sayre writes on his blog, 'More than Sunspider, V8, and Dromaeo, Kraken focuses on realistic workloads and forward-looking applications. We believe that the benchmarks used in Kraken are better in terms of reflecting realistic workloads for pushing the edge of browser performance forward. These are the things that people are saying are too slow to do with open web technologies today, and we want to have benchmarks that reflect progress against making these near-future apps universally available.' On my somewhat elderly x86_64 Linux system Google Chrome 6.0.472.55 beta completes the Kraken benchmark in 28638.1 milliseconds, Opera 10.62 completes it in 23612.4 milliseconds, and the current Firefox 4 nightly build completes it in 19897.5 milliseconds."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obvious... (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584308)

How about IE performance? Too bad to even mention?

Re:Obvious... (5, Funny)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584344)

It's still running.

Re:Obvious... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584394)

It's still running.

You mean it hasn't crashed yet?

Re:Obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584452)

The IE progress bar seems to be going backwards... O.o

Anyway,

Chrome 6.0.472.55 - 28638.1 ms
Opera 10.62 - 23612.4 ms
Firefox 4 nightly - 19897.5 ms

And mine?

Apple Safari 5.0.2 - 7813.5ms

(Mac OS 10.6.4 / i7 920 3.8GHz / 3GB RAM 1600)

Eat it. :P

Re:Obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584472)

On my somewhat eldery x86_64 Linux system

Dont think an Core i7 qualifies as "somewhat eldery"

Re:Obvious... (2, Informative)

XsCode (639295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584592)

Intel T7500, 2.2GHz, 2GB Ram, Win 7 x64

Crome 7.0.517.5 dev - 19849.5ms

Re:Obvious... (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584626)

Chrome stable (6.x) gave me 16165.4 on: Windows 7 x64 Phenom II X4 955 (3.2ghz) 6GB DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12)

Re:Obvious... (5, Interesting)

edgrale (216858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584450)

It's still running.

Laugh all you want but I have had it running on IE 8 (Windows 7 64 bit) for the past 5 minutes and it is still stuck at the first stage. So I think we have a legitimate reason why Internet Explorer was not included...

Also got a warning that "A script on this page is causing your web browser to run slowly."...

Re:Obvious... (2, Informative)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584396)

From TFS:

On my somewhat elderly x86_64 Linux system

Re:Obvious... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584486)

How about IE performance? Too bad to even mention?

I started it on the latest IE 9 Preview, but it seems like it's taking at least around 3-4 times as long time to finish as Chrome or Firefox, so I aborted it. :-(

Re:Obvious... (1)

ultral0rd (1595449) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584744)

IE 8 Results : "This script it causing your browser to slow down. Do you wish to continue?" You then have to press "Yes" continually till you give up. :( IE ftw..

Javascript (4, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584312)

Shame it only benchmarks one small part of the browser - Javascript.

Re:Javascript (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584354)

The scary bit is that the world is quickly moving in a direction where serious desktop applications will be written in... Javascript.

So much for Java, .NET ; as soon as its possible to earn money through the Google App store for your Web app there will be a torrent of these applications being release to the world.

The web browser is the new platform.

It feels like going back 20 years in time.

Re:Javascript (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584604)

Oh good, at least there will be a Torrent. I'd hate to have to use their App store.

Good, that means a world were people could code (-1, Offtopic)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584614)

Good, that means a world were people could still code. Were people didn't jump on to the latest flavor language/framework because they want auto-generated code that takes a super computer to run. Sorry but Java and .NET are to me NOT the holy pinacles of coding achievement. They are usuable languages that unfortunally have gotten overloaded by people who use them not to code but rather to not code. Just click on wizards and generate code.

With a shift to Javascript, people might actually have to start thinking about cpu cycles again. Optimizations rather then bloat.

Yes in some ways everything old is new again and maybe that is because a text editor really shouldn't use gigs of memory. Maybe the future is in small apps that do one thing well and do it cost effective. Gosh, if only there was an OS based on this philosophy.

I see the move to the browser as a move to be OS and device independent. Gmail works EVERYWHERE. It does everything I need it to do and as an extra bonus I can use it anywhere. No more Windows, Linux, OS-X requirement. No more version differences or installs or license keys. Just fire up any browser and my mail is there.

Same with google docs. Sure sure, it don't do everything Office or even OpenOffice does, but I don't use 99% of the features. And for not confusing me with features I do not need and want, it again has freed me from hardware and OS, and I can access it anywhere. Crashed HD? No worry to me.

Yes, there are downsides, but frankly the recent 20 years of needing a super sized OS installed with bloated software has its downsides too.

I made a virtual machine recently for testing of XP. 2GIGs HD were NOT enough for a base install and update. 2 GIGS. And the OS didn't even do anything useful yet.

I do not think every program can go to the web. But javascript itself is a solid language, just mis understood by Java freaks who think there is only one way to code (see the large number of javascript libraries that seek to twist javascript into something it is not) and with the browser show intresting possibilties to get programs out of the OS/hardware lockin and widely available.

If that means the death of Java and .NET... well I am not going to shed a tear. If you said it would kill C or C++ I might care but not for .NET

Javascript is useless. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584618)

Try writing a web application in pure javascript. No, no HTML tags allowed. Not even a canvas. See how useful javascript is.

We had an internal test, building a treeview with several thousand nodes, built in Javascript (the output of the serverside control was javascript that would build the tree, to avoid sending the HTML tags, of which there was a lot). Running it on Firefox 3.something, IE 8, Chrome 5 (or so), you'd expect Chrome to be the fastest, and IE to be the slowest. Turned out to be the other way around. IE was the fastest, building the treeview in around 2 seconds, Firefox took 9 seconds to build it, and Chrome was measured in minutes.

When we split it up, we found out that, yes, Chrome was the fastest processing the Javascript. Displaying the result was what took all that time.

You are right that javascript is necessary for most stuff on the web nowadays, but fast javascript does not make the browser fast if everything else is slow. Currently (3.x), everything is slow in Firefox. IE can do some things fast, others are just as slow as Firefox. Chrome is the overall fastest browser, winning on startup time and javascript performance.

Making Firefox do javascript faster than Chrome doesn't help a lot, if Chrome has finished processing the javascript before Firefox starts up.

Re:Javascript (1, Flamebait)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584376)

All large applications are chock-full of Javascript. Web applications are almost entirely written in Javascript.

Slashdot uses javascript.

Try getting noscript - leave it on and browse the web, see just how many stuff breaks. In fact, the only websites which don't use javascript are non-dynamic ones.

So yes, Javascript is becoming the language of the future. Pity its horrible as a language.

Re:Javascript (2, Insightful)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584474)

Pity its horrible as a language

Many people have told me that... so far I'm unimpressed by their arguments. Yes, there are a lot of people who abuse js -- but how would that change if we gave them another language? Yes, working with the DOM in a cross-browser way is a pain in the ass -- but how would that change if you did that via another language? Yes, some js engines have bugs and performance issues -- but how do we know the engines for the other languages would be better (remember that we need an engine for every browser)?

Now, there are some valid complaints on javascript as a language: it was designed in a hurry and then left to rot. With all its faults, I still think it's a pretty damn beautiful and expressive language. The awful quality of books, tutorials and example code on javascript is a major reason for the reputation it has, but check out "JavaScript: The Good Parts" by Douglas Crockford if you want to see the genuine elegance in javascript -- this book should be a requirement for anyone who wants to either code in js or express an opinion about it in public.

Re:Javascript (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584498)

I touched on it many times. What's horrible about it is that if something goes wrong - NOTHING happens. When you're trying to debug something and end up filling it full of popups to see when its failing...

Try GWT if you've got naught to do - it converts java to javascript code.

Re:Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584520)

I touched on it many times. What's horrible about it is that if something goes wrong - NOTHING happens. When you're trying to debug something and end up filling it full of popups to see when its failing...

Why won't you use something like firebug that has the standard breakpoint/step/step into etc stuff?

Try GWT if you've got naught to do - it converts java to javascript code.

Shows how much you know...

Re:Javascript (2, Insightful)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584664)

Sorry, but this goes to the unimpressing-arguments pile... Debugging javascript is not more difficult than debugging anything else that runs in an environment like the browser and the tools that are available are fairly good. "Debugging by popups" was a choice you made, not something related to javascript the language.

Re:Javascript (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584706)

...

Really? Show me something which provides me a break capability, with the ability to inspect variables, and single step thru the code.

Re:Javascript (1)

RJabelman (550626) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584738)

Firebug or IE8's built in developer tools.

I'd bet the tools in Chrome & Safari do too, but I've not used them so much.

Re:Javascript (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584746)

Firebug does all those things, AFAIK. Although I certainly agree that it's not as convenient a debugging environment as Eclipse and other full blown IDEs.

Re:Javascript (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584628)

I prefer Javascript to Java any day. Protoypes, lambda... I played with it back in the day of Mozilla 0.* beta and had lots of fun writing a little dungeon master game with it.

Re:Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584694)

Thanks for the book tip, purchased!

Re:Javascript (3, Insightful)

olau (314197) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584542)

Sure, but the whole point of many Javascript-enabled applications is manipulating the DOM. Which is often really slow. Something as simple as putting a couple of invisible divs on the page and measuring their height is measured in milliseconds, not microseconds.

So while some applications obviously aren't possible without a fast Javascript engine, I think if you really want to make the web faster for people, you need to include a DOM benchmark. Something like inserting text, inserting elements, moving elements, fading elements.

OT: whatever happened to slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584586)

Slashdot uses javascript.

Indeed. Does anyone know wht happened to slashdot? It used to be bearable with no Javascript, but since about a week ago, the whole formatting has become a mess for those refusing to run with javascript on.

Re:OT: whatever happened to slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584770)

It has? Looks and works fine for me.
Haven't noticed anything change recently either.

Re:Javascript (1)

heitikender (655816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584682)

I'm not sure I use audio beatdetection in real life often, if ever ... still, it's about 10% of final result on my computer. :)

Other browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584314)

What about IE9? Safari?

Re:Other browsers? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584342)

Here are my results.

Latest Mozilla Central nightly on Mac OS X 32 bit: 9339.5ms [mozilla.com]

Latest Webkit nightly. 64 bit: 15736.5ms [mozilla.com]

I'll run a Mozilla Central 64 bit in a moment.

Re:Other browsers? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584398)

Latest Mozilla Central 64 bit: 9409.6ms [mozilla.com]

Latest Chromium 32 bit 18766.2ms [mozilla.com]

Re:Other browsers? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584514)

Latest Opera Snapshot: 15603.7ms [mozilla.com]

Re:Other browsers? (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584646)

FF 3.6.9 on MacBook Pro '08: 24930.0ms +/- 0.4% [mozilla.com]

(not testing under ideal conditions - other tabs open, other programs running, etc, in an attempt to reflect "real conditions")

I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's game (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584326)

ways suspicious when someone releases a benchmark that shows that their software is better than others, especially when other benchmarks have shown FF as slower than Chrome or Opera. I hope this isn't one of those M$ style tests that find the bits that their own software does well and others badly and test that.

Its obvious that its just marketing BS. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584362)

Why would they create YET ANOTHER benchmark if their engine wasn't going to do well in that? Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit entity after all.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (2, Insightful)

AberBeta (851747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584366)

If you hadn't noticed, every synthetic benchmark released from a browser vendor favoured their engine, at time of release. At least Google had balls to call it v8bench.
While I believe all benchmarks (and non-comprehensive ACID tests) to be 3dmark-style pissing contests where they encourage developers to fast-path specific used functions, I have more confidence in Mozilla producing another (Dromaeo also tried to have a more realistic workflow).

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584676)

While I believe all benchmarks (and non-comprehensive ACID tests) to be 3dmark-style pissing contests

I want a benchmark that shows a large Slashdot article loading over 3G (at -1, no Javascript). For some reason it still completely freezes Firefox.

Sadly, it's the only browser out there with Noscript and Adblock.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (4, Insightful)

paziek (1329929) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584370)

Its not like only MS and Mozilla as browser vendor released their own benchmark in with their product is doing good.
Besides, whats so bad about it? Ain't it obvious they are gonna include in their benchmarks stuff that they feel is important and as a consequence - made it good during browser development?
It just shows that other browsers than FF lack in some areas, with might - or might not - be important.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584372)

Firefox is made of fail

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (4, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584414)

One of Mozilla's longstanding issues with some of the other benchmarks is that they test toy problems that take longer to set up than to run. Yes, that favors browsers with JS engines that set up for execution quickly, and that portion of the engine is important. It doesn't show the real speedups for intensive applications in the browser, though. Optimizing the slow parts is the priority of most people right now, and getting the application set up a little faster at the beginning isn't as big a deal unless you have a lot of small scripts in one page.

An earlier blog post by Sayre [mozilla.com] and some of the comments to it display some of the issues.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (3, Interesting)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584424)

Why don't they just grab the (say) 200 most visited sites on the internet, copy the JavaScript and use that to benchmark instead?

Simples.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584470)

You'd still have to come up with a pattern of javascript calls that represents normal use of those sites. The test is on running javascript, not loading it.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (3, Interesting)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584494)

Because the amount of time it takes to run the javascript on the top sites is pretty small (which is what the IE team was talking about around IE8's release). Performance on those sites mostly doesn't depend on whether your JS engine is the one in Chrome dev or the one in IE7. I only say "mostly" because I wouldn't be surprised if gmail is in the top 200. ;)

If you're going to worry specifically about JS performance (which is an assumption; the IE team is still saying that this focus is a mistake and to some extent they're right), you want to be benchmarking things that are gated on JS performance. That means identifying t the things that are slow with current JS engines and that people would like to be doing but can't because of said slowness, whatever those things are, and benchmarking those.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584438)

Lies, damned lies and benchmarks.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584584)

They are testing speed from A to B and other tests calculate speed from C to D. Lies, damn lies and statistics in both cases. Firefox is optimized better for A-B path and Chrome is optimized for C-D path. Biggest question is which path is more realistic.

Re:I hope that Firefox isn't playing Microsoft's g (5, Insightful)

Grismar (840501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584606)

Have you considered that it may well be the other way around?

If Mozilla, Google, MS, Apple or whoever truly believe that those particular aspects of a browser are the most important, doesn't it make sense that they would optimize their browsers for those aspects? I think it makes sense that they would write tests for the exact same aspects that they have been optimizing their browsers for, -because- they believe these are the key aspects.

Lacking an objective measure, all you can do right now is decide with whom you agree the most and probably use their browser or another browser that ranks well on their test - if these benchmarks are a critical decision factor for you.

Units (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584334)

What sort of time measurement is '28638.1 milliseconds'? Would it not be more sensible to say 28.6 seconds?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584386)

286 ds (decisecond).

Re:Units (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584444)

Not an SI unit.

Re:Units (1)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584510)

Uh... Both deci and seconds are SI units. If you can use decimeter and decibel, why shouldn't you be able to use decisecond?

Re:Units (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584588)

Apologies, a deci is an SI unit (why did I post that?), but I have never heard anyone use it. You never, ever measure a deci-metre or deci-gramme.

dB is 100% not a SI unit.

Re:Units (1)

narooze (845310) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584668)

Both deci-metre (dm) and deci-litre (dl) are really common units of measurement in Sweden at least.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584756)

also the rest of Europe... to my knowledge at least ;) I can confirm this in the Netherlands and Germany. I know Poland they use dm3 to measure petrol/diesel instead of liters ;)

Re:Units (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584752)

Actually, you do hear about decimeters... 1/10th of a meter. Coincidentally, 1 cubic decimeter is exactly 1 litre.

Re:Units (1)

Pearlswine (1121125) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584762)

Decibel?

Re:Units (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584632)

deci is a SI prefix, seconds is a SI (base) unit, and bels is not even a "SI derived unit".

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584764)

And you call yourself an engineer (repeatedly on your website)...

Shameful.

If you're that ignorant about the International System of Units, perhaps you should just not comment about it.

Yes, decisecond is a perfectly valid SI unit. Look it up (there is this magical internet thing where you can search for information).

Re:Units (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584456)

28.6s is less accurate than 28638.1ms.

Re:Units (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584544)

28.6s is less accurate than 28638.1ms.

28.6s is less precise than 28638.1ms but they could be equally accurate depending on the test conditions.

Re:Units (1)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584656)

The test actually reports uncertainties on runtimes - when I ran it, it was on the order of ~0.5%, so 28.6 seconds is all the accuracy you can meaningfully specify. Those last 3 digits are effectively meaningless - accuracy is a function of the test, not how many digits you can make it spit out at the end.

Am I the only one? (3, Insightful)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584360)

Am I the only one who has had enough of these benchmark tests? I don't care about your milliseconds! What I want is low RAM usage (how about concentrating on THIS Mozzila?) and more features/plugins.

Re:Am I the only one? (4, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584404)

Well... Mozilla _has_ concentrated on low RAM usage in the past. The actual memory usage of Gecko is significantly lower than its competitors if you load some pages and measure it.

At this point, they're actually trading off space for performance (e.g. making some core objects slightly bigger to improve certain performance characteristics).

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584620)

Well... Mozilla _has_ concentrated on low RAM usage in the past. The actual memory usage of Gecko is significantly lower than its competitors if you load some pages and measure it.

Not that I want to complain but comparing memory usage for Firefox and Opera on my work laptop (running Windows Vista Business 64-bit, C2D) and Firefox and Safari 5 on my home system (fully patched OS X, Core i7) I have to say that Firefox is disappointing when it comes to memory usage. Compared to Opera it's a resource hog on my work laptop, if I start Opera and Firefox at the same time and use Opera over the day with only some minor Firefox usage it will still use 50% more RAM than Opera at the end of the day, and that's without any add-ons activated. On OS X it seems that memory usage for Safari is a bit closer to Firefox but OTOH Firefox on OS X has always been quite sluggish in so many ways, even startup seems to take a very long time compared to Safari (or the Windows/Linux/FreeBSD versions of Firefox), and this is something I've experienced on a number of Macs with different hardware configurations and versions of OS X (from 10.4.x through 10.6.4), both "old" OS installs and completely fresh installs where there is no "cruft" that might cause slowdowns.

Also, Firefox and IE are the only browsers I've used on modern operating systems that have actually crashed the OS hard (in both cases it was runaway memory leaks on Windows, before I could kill the process all physical RAM had been allocated making the machine in question grind to a halt as it attempted to expand the swap file to a previously unseen size).

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584634)

Interesting. One question. Is this a Firefox profile with extensions installed? If so, which ones? Whenever I've looked over here (Linux and Mac), recent Firefox has used less memory than recent Opera....

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584774)

Well, the memory usage definitely gets worse if I have Web Developer, Firebug, Screengrab and YSlow installed. But even without these add-ons it still feels like memory usage could be lowered, if performance reflected the amount of RAM being used then I wouldn't mind it most of the time but when the browser as a whole still feels sluggish compared to Safari, Opera and Chrome it kind of annoys me.

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584426)

I don't think I have EVER maxed out the 4gb on my machine. Ever. Who cares about memory usage?

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

Xaemyl (88001) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584516)

Someone who runs more than one program, perhaps?

Re:Am I the only one? (5, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584490)

For this particular Slashdot page right now, with both browsers opened fresh for it, Firefox 4.0 beta 6 uses 23 megabytes less resident memory than Chrome 5.0.375.125 does. It also uses about 1800 megabytes less virtual mapped memory, not that that matters nearly as much, but it's a big number in difference.

Epiphany 2.30.2 uses 11 megabytes less residential still, but about as much virtual as Chrome.

Galeon 2.0.7 uses about the same residential memory as Firefox and about twice as much virtual.

Midori 0.2.6 uses 5 megabytes less residential than Firefox, and about 1850 megabytes more virtual.

Arora 0.10.2 uses about twice as much residential memory as Firefox, and about twice as much virtual.

Dillo only needs 11 megabytes to render the page, but that doesn't have JavaScript and only shows a handful of comments without being able to get more.

Fennec 1.0 uses about the same memory footprint as Firefox 4.0 Beta 6, despite being the small-device Mozilla browser.

What is your exact complaint about Firefox's memory use? Are you still experiencing the huge memory leakage and growth from the 2.0 series?

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584648)

What is your exact complaint about Firefox's memory use? Are you still experiencing the huge memory leakage and growth from the 2.0 series?

This.

Re:Am I the only one? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584492)

What I want is low RAM usage

Ok, so you want a lighter, leaner browser...

and more features/plugins.

And at the same time more feature-rich.

Wait, what?

Re:Am I the only one? (1, Insightful)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584512)

I meant that Firefox still has RAM leaks.

Re:Am I the only one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584518)

I know...its just sad when on my 1GB machine I am left with no choice but to kill Firefox's process when I start noticing my computer lagging like hell, open up the task manager, and see that firefox.exe is taking well over 600MB of physical RAM on its own.

err... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584378)

Why compare stable versions (opera) to nightly builds (firefox) ?

Re:err... (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584430)

Well, if you read changelog to latest Opera snapshot (10.70) there doesn't seem to be anything about performance improvements. And they did use Chrome 6 beta, so its not exactly that they use only stable competition.

Re:err... (1)

MrChris2 (151271) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584476)

Um.. not true:
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2010/09/13/new-presto-update-and-good-news-from-the-desktop-team
They've updated the engine in the latest release.
I can't compare machines etc, but at least on my copy of Opera 10.70 the execution time is: 15145.0ms
A touch faster than Firefox Nightly no?

But I agree with the other comments, this is just a JS benchmark, I'd rather get a feel for memory consumption and page render times these days.

Re:err... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584524)

Because it's not a comparison, just some results for the browsers the submitter happened to have installed?

Why didn't you provide comprehensive results for all browsers?

Kraken (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584390)

As made popular in the Pirates of the Caribbean films? Fortunately theres plenty of prior art on this legendary sea monster, so they can't sue you.

Re:Kraken (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584546)

Or the original Clash of the Titans years before Johnny Depp was on 21 Jumpstreet? Or in 1870 when Verne mentioned it? Or in 1830 when Tennyson wrote of it?

It's also an actual myth, many of which are feature in the Titan films and in Pirates of the Carribean films, too. I don't think they need to worry about a trademark over an old Norse fishing legend.

brought to you by the softwar nazis at the bsa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584446)

see banner ad. there's still time to rat out your fellow citizen to get money. what 'companies'? what products? what a place to advertise. pathetically hysterical re: ALL partIEs involved.

Hello Beastie.. (1)

dewhiskeys (1732066) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584502)

You look good, Moz..

The circle is now complete! (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584532)

Google wins in their test [googlecode.com] ! (that curiously heavily exploit recursion and other good parts of the V8 engine)

Microsoft wins in their tests [microsoft.com] ! (that curiously heavily test only DirectX acceleration)

... and now, Firefox wins in their test [mozilla.com] ! (which has yet to be disassembled to reveal how they dodge Opera and Chrome from winning, when they use to in all others, including independent tests like Peacekeeper)

Re:The circle is now complete! (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584564)

You forgot the part about Apple winning in their test (sunspider), and the curious cache of the values of the sin() function in their JS engine that just happens to be the right size for that test.

Fundamentally, browser makers optimize their engine for what they consider important. They also put the things they consider important into benchmarks. The result is somewhat predictable.

Now Peacekeeper is an interesting mention, except I've actually looked at its code. This is a benchmark that measures things like 10,000 calls each of which removes 20 elements from an array that starts with 100,000 elements. It has (failed, interestingly) attempts to browser-sniff and run different code in different browsers. I wouldn't take its numbers to mean much of anything, in general, without some careful study of the exact tests you're looking at. Of course it's also measuring a lot more than just JavaScript; in that sense it's better than most of the benchmarks out there, if you think it manages to correctly measure the things it claims it's measuring.

One other thing, by the way: I fully expect that on Kraken shipping Chrome and Opera are faster than Firefox 3.6.

Re:The circle is now complete! (1)

Johnno74 (252399) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584672)

One other thing, by the way: I fully expect that on Kraken shipping Chrome and Opera are faster than Firefox 3.6.

Firefox 3.6 is pretty sluggish compared to the latest 4.0 betas, and I beleive that b6 will have a lot more JS optimisation enabled.

So yeah, I'd expect FF 3.6 to be the slowest of the bunch. Excluding IE of course, which is in a whole different league of slow.
Actually, there are probably several empty leagues between FF/Chrome/Safari/Opera and IE

Re:The circle is now complete! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584684)

> So yeah, I'd expect FF 3.6 to be the slowest of the bunch.

Right. Which is consistent with other JS tests, so no mysteries or benchmark-skewing by Mozilla needed there... ;)

> Actually, there are probably several empty leagues between FF/Chrome/Safari/Opera and IE

That may or may not be the case with the IE9 betas, depending on which benchmarks you use. Though there's some weirdness; see http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/09/09/js-benchmarks-closing-in/ [mozilla.com] the paragraph starting "One last issue that can crop up".

Re:The circle is now complete! (3, Informative)

phizi0n (1237812) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584674)

Actually FF4 nightlies beat IE9 in many of the IE9 testdrive tests. FF4 has the same Direct2D, Direct Write, and DirectX 9 hardware acceleration that IE9 does but FF4's javascript engine is better which gives it better FPS in those tests. FF4's javascript engine is a lot faster and there's still lots of room for improvement. FF4 Beta 7 will have the new javascript engine but it's already been merged to the nightly trunk branch so you can try it now if you want. Firefox had hardware acceleration first (in nightlies) and it's on track to be the first to have it in a major release (FF4).

Unfair method? (2, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584568)

Comparing the FF4 nightly builds against the latest released versions of the other browsers is quite unfair. So I tried this thing on my Intel Core2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz laptop, and Opera 10.70.9046 (the most recent alpha available from Opera) and that gives me 12841.5 ms +/- 2.5%. OTOH I don't have FF4 nightly builds here ... can somebody actually run a comparison on the _same_ hardware to check all the most recent available builds of all browsers?

Re:Unfair method? (1)

phizi0n (1237812) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584758)

Install FF4 nightly and test it yourself... Why even mention a number if you're not going to compare it to anything. This doesn't have the latest Opera but it compares a wider variety of prerelease browsers.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=9891857#p9891857 [mozillazine.org]

My kraken results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584578)

These are my results
All with up to date browsers (no betas)
FireFox 25635.6ms
Opera 12984.8ms
Chrome 16415.6ms
IE 8 A script on this page is causing Internet Explorer to run slowly, continuously.

So yay for opera and no surprise there for internet explorer

Chromium is still king (1)

technomanceraus (653563) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584580)

Just tried it on chromium nightly build 7.0.522.0 (59180) on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS 64bit and it got 11180.7ms looks like the chromium developers aren't sitting still either

Re:Chromium is still king (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584704)

I just tried a Firefox nightly against whatever Chrome I have installed, and FF4 slaughtered Chrome (8000ish versus 16000ish) but I continued to browse in another tab while running both, and Chrome was usable while FF was laggy and jumpy. So frankly who cares what the numbers are, when one browser is vastly more usable (and I say that as someone who still uses FF as my main browser, perhaps not for long...)

Re:Chromium is still king (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584716)

Are you comparing your 11180.7 number to the numbers in the article submission to conclude that "Chrome is still king"? Or did you run other browsers on your hardware and OS? The hardware and OS _do_ make a difference, you know... especially that hardware bit.

How can you tell from just that?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33584766)

Are you the submitter? If not how do you know if your system (as a whole) is not faster than the submitter's system to begin with (i.e. running Google Chrome 6.0.472.55 beta would have produced the same time on your system/setup as the submitter's)?

I got 16519.8ms in a 7.0.520.0 (58924) nightly build on a 64 bit Slackware 13.1 so does that mean we can conclude chromium has sped up dramatically after my version?

I would guess that parts of Chromium have changed speed between versions but we need more results before we can make an assertion like "Chromium is fastest in this benchmark". Maybe it is but...

Crashes my Firexfox 3.6! (1)

mix77 (1114879) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584690)

Who would have thunk it?

Biased? (2, Insightful)

danwiz (538108) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584700)

We believe that the benchmarks used in Kraken are better in terms of reflecting realistic workloads

Or just better in terms of reflecting where their product is strongest?

Isn't it just a little bit suspicious when the browser people release a benchmark that scores their own browser as the fastest? Intel's benchmark in 2002 [pcworld.com] was known to have emphasized performance traits specific to Intel chips.

One thing I don't understand. (2, Insightful)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584718)

How did mozilla leash the kraken in the first place? or maybe it was godzilla that did that?

Who cares (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#33584726)

My browser's performance has always been "good enough". Can we talk about ergonomy, reliability, compatibility, please ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?