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!

A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the global-variables dept.

Programming 163

KidCompy writes "The newest browsers boast huge performance improvements, but how much do you trust benchmarks trotted out to prove those claims? Do they reflect the real uses to which developers will put HTML 5 and JavaScript? We've extracted several benchmarks from our existing programs to measure actual versus theoretical performance."

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Slashdotted already? (0)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664534)

How in the world does a site get Slashdotted as soon as its article as posted? I mean, there weren't even any comments yet when I clicked it!

Re:Slashdotted already? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664544)

Your connection must suck, it loaded in under 5 seconds for me. Well... I know that most Slashdotter's are under 25 and pretty impatient when it comes to load times.

Re:Slashdotted already? (1, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664588)

Are you suggestion that most slashdotters are female?

Re:Slashdotted already? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664690)

Yeah, we wish! I don't think even the OP is that naive.

Re:Slashdotted already? (1)

KiwiSurfer (309836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664634)

Your connection must suck, it loaded in under 5 seconds for me. Well... I know that most Slashdotter's are under 25 and pretty impatient when it comes to load times.

Worked fine for me too, loaded in seconds.

Re:Slashdotted already? (1)

Phil Cassacoff (1954600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665448)

LMAO at "under 25." I'm under 25 and don't have a single tech friend that could keep up around here. No way. Best guess is 30's and up.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664786)

He's a stupid nigger.

Things to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664536)

I'd comment on this story, but I just made an "appointment" with a "massage therapist" on Craig's List, and I have to run out for some, er, latex...

Slashdotted already? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664538)

How can it be slashdotted with so few comments? Can it be that we've started RTFA?

Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664564)

Hi, I'm genuinely curious how the various browsers do on the benchmark.

Could Slashdotters please run it on multiple browsers and report how it does (plus, how what hardware you're running on.)

Thanks!
Dave Woldrich
ClubCompy.com [clubcompy.com]

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1, Funny)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664570)

Sorry, my bad, didn't mean to post anonymously

-- Dave

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664592)

Some examples

Firefox Browser Version: 2.0b8 Score: 6211/50000 rwb points
Chrome Browser Version: 534.13 Score: 11905/50000 rwb points
IE Browser Version: 8.0 So slow that it tanked the tests on my machine

System Specs AMD X2 @ 2.7GHz, 6GB Ram, Browser running off a non solid state drive, Windows 7 OS.

As always with these sorts of tests YMMV

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664604)

Ew, like, IE didn't even load a test? It's ok if IE6-8 runs super slow and gets 1/6th of Firefox. IE6-8 doesn't have the Canvas tag after all, so we had to make do with VML. Bleh. But, if it didn't load at all for you on IE and all you saw was a blank canvas, then something must have broke.

Thanks for the report, your numbers look nearly the same as mine and I have a slightly slower AMD with less ram and running XP.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664670)

IE just sits at "Wait a moment" drawn on the canvas briefly loads the first test and then stops the browser isn't frozen the test just doesn't continue for me, don't know why though I very rarely load IE so I guess its not really that relevant. Loading IE in a vmware XP terminal seems to work though it loads obscenely slowly (took 4 minutes to get past wait a moment) so it may just be a configuration problem on my 7 install.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664866)

Darn. Well, I built IE support because I had to, not because I cared to. But that is really terrible how it behaved, sorry it didn't work well/at all. Sounds like Firefox and Chrome performed in-line with others though, so at least we got 2 out of 3. ;)

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665114)

I don't understand why people are still using IE. Is there a test that it can pass? I would just put in some conditional comments (which should just be ignored), and give them an "upgrade" link to get a real browser.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664732)

Worked for me in IE8 on Win 7. Was 4-5 times slower than Opera.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664714)

2520 on the iPad, Dave.

Sorry, I already closed the window but the iPad dragged pretty badly on the first one, the second one went OK, and the Mandelbrot barely started the 2nd iteration by the time the test elapsed.

In the morning I will reboot this thing and try again without any other apps running, and post the detailed results.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664838)

iPad! Very cool. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get compy keyboard working with the iPad/iPhone's touch screen keyboard. So, if you go to the main site, I doubt you'll be able to play around with the shell. Sorry bout that, you'll have to stick with PC (or use the Compy Clipboard only to input code) if you want to write your own compy programs.

On a semi-related note, I don't have a handle on how much faster the iPad is over the iPhone (if at all). Last time I tested on those (~6 months ago) I recall the iPad was markedly faster. Do you happen to have an iPhone as well? Can you compare/contrast?

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664736)

7022/50000 rwb points on Chrome 9.0.597.19 beta. HP Pavilion DV4 (Windows 7, AMD Turion X2 2100, 4GB RAM).

Bumper bots 426
Screen Painter 23
Mandelbrot Zoomer 4298

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664756)

I wouldn't worry about the results much, this is about the most unreal real world test ever. They should be embaressed to even have that as the article title, nothing about those tests are testing real world performance of HTML 5.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

yiffyfox (162564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665564)

Win 7 64bit AMD 965 oc 4.0GHz 8GBram (nvidia 295):

13809 (762, 108, 8631) - Chrome 8.0.552.224 / safari 534.10
13061 (750, 45, 8550) - Opera 11 build 1156 / opera 11.00
12924 (703, 68, 8678) - Safari 5.0 (7533.16) / safari 533.16
8429 (495, 37, 5256) - Firefox 3.6.13 / mozilla 1.9.2.13
2873 (123, 5, 2533) - IE 8.0.7600.16385 64bit / msie 8.0
2855 (123, 5, 2505) - IE 8.0.7600.16385 32bit / msie 8.0

Win XP AMD 940 3GHz 2.75GBram:

12130 (748, 35, 7320) - Opera 11 build 1156 / opera 11.00
11860 (662, 72, 7596) - Chrome 8.0.552.224 / safari 534.10
8621 (392, 51, 6780) - Safari 5.0.3 (7533.19.4) / safari 533.19.4
7093 (435, 28, 4209) - Firefox 3.6.12 / mozilla 1.9.2.12
2098 (114, 2, 1537) - IE 8.0.6001.18702 / msie 8.0

iPad 16gb wifi:
2756 (177, 3, 1635) - safari 531.21.10

iPhone 3Gs:
1980 (119, 2, 1290) - safari 528.18

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665596)

Those are some beautiful numbers! And that chrome score is monstrous! Thanks for testing iphone, I'm glad it woked

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665608)

It doesn't work at all in SRWare Iron. [srware.net]

In Firefox:
7731/50000 rwb points (64-bit Windows 7; AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 3.20Ghz; 4GB RAM)

Bumper bots 451
Screen Painter 31
Mandelbrot Zoomer 4903

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

dakohli (1442929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664632)

Here are my scores: Galaxy S Captivate ('droid Cellphone): 2158

eLocity A7 ('droid Tablet): 3969

Acer L100 (GeForce 6150/Linux Mint 9)

(Athlone 6400 x2 w/ 2Gb Ram)

Mozilla 3.6.13: 4938 Opera 10.60: 6335 Safari 531.2: 6410

I have some Windows boxes around, but they are shut down right now. Not really sure how good these scores are

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664654)

Amazing celphone score, sweet!

I think your scores are good, it's all relative anyways, that's why I asked people to post what they get.

Thanks!

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664806)

For comparison, my non-OCed DroidX w/ stock 2.2.1 browser: 2746.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664868)

I am simply floored it works at all. (I have a Palm Pre, and it's a no-go there.) This truly is a brave new world we're entering.

My stats (2)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664656)

Firefox Portable v3.6.13, Score: 6536/50000 rwb points

Firefox Portable v4 beta 8, Score: 8006/50000 rwb points

Opera Portable v11: Score: 10756/50000 rwb points

Chrome v8.0.552.224, Score: 11464/50000 rwb points

OS: Win7 x64, PC: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @2.66, 4GB RAM, VGA: Radeon HD 4670, Catalyst 10.10, Core@750, Memory@800

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664746)

Firefox 4.0b9pre (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0b9pre) Gecko/20101224 Firefox/4.0b9pre)

Score: 7203/50000

#1 -- 438 iterations, JS/engine: 10, DOM: 8, JS/mem: 3. Math: 1, JS/flow: 4, Graphics: 9
#2 -- 37 iterations, JS/engine: 5, DOM: 10, JS/mem: 0. Math: 2, JS/flow: 10, Graphics: 10
#3 -- 4208 iterations, JS/engine: 6, DOM: 0, JS/mem: 0. Math: 5, JS/flow: 10, Graphics: 1

Ubuntu 10.10 x64 (Gnome 2.32.0 / Kernel 2.6.35-22-generic) on a 4GB Intel i7 (Q720 @ 1.60GHz) with 1GB NVidia GeForce GT 230M using NVidia driver 260.19.06

Beta 8 gets crushed too (1)

roju (193642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665494)

Firefox 4.0 beta 8 on OSX 10.6.5. Macbook Pro Core2Duo 2.4GHz 4GB RAM

Score: 5714/50000 rwb points

#1: Iterations: 293/1800, JS/engine: 10, DOM: 8, JS/mem: 3, Math: 1, JS/flow: 4, Graphics: 9

#2: Iterations: 28/1800, JS/engine: 5, DOM: 10, JS/mem: 0, Math: 2, JS/flow: 10, Graphics: 10

#3: Iterations: 4114, JS/engine: 6, DOM: 0, JS/mem: 0, Math: 5, JS/flow: 10, Graphics: 1

scores + H/W Specs (2)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664772)

All browsers = 32 bit.

Firefox 4.0 beta 8: 7794

Opera 11: 11569

Pale Moon (Firefox) 3.6.13: 6381

Firefox 3.6.13: 6555

CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 550 Processor 3.10 GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Windows 7 Enterprise 64 bit
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 4200

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664814)

Safari 5.0.3 using WebKit r74228: 11984
Chrome 8.0.552.231: 11565
Firefox 3.6.13: 6316

Oddly both chrome and safari came up as "Safari version 534.10" in the benchmark.

MacBook Pro 3.06Ghz Core2Duo with 8GB RAM running Mac OS 10.6.5

An aside: The programs you're giving to kids look pretty awful. I know a lot of people have nostalgia about programming their Amiga etc, but I don't think it had anything to do with the crappy programming languages they used to do it. Instead it was simply that those systems allowed you to relatively quickly get together something that actually represented something close to a commercial game. I think all you're doing is making the task harder for kids wanting to learn by giving them such a crappy language to work with.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (2)

gnalle (125916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664832)

Epiphany 2.30.6 on Debian Sid GNU/Linux on a Dell Inspiron 6400
Linux kernel 2.32-5 with opensource radeon driver

Score: 6347/50000 rwb points
BumperBots w/ Sprite Collisions Iterations run 382
Title Screen Painter Iterations run 5
Title Mandelbrot Set Fractal Zoomer Iterations run 4146

By the way. Your site is pretty cool, but I would like it even more if you didn't use BASIC. Perhaps you could add a slightly more modern language as an alternative.

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664856)

Well, just trying to give the kids a simple language to start with. The site is for everyone, but it's supposed to be something a kindergardener or first grader could be introduced to. I feel we have a moral responsibility to get kids trained on how to code and learn 'em on what computers can be made to do. And so, that's why we made ClubCompy.

That said, I completely concur with you. We have plans to add a sort of "byte code" VM behind the scenes that we could target with an assembler or with a higher level language compiler. That's my dream to see that happen, anyways. Big kids need to learn assembly once they get bored with our "Tasty" language. ;)

Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664976)

Okay, I'll play along: Specs - OS Win 7 X64, CPU - AMD Phenom II X4 925 @ 2.8GHz, Memory and HDD - 8GB of DDR2 and dual 500GB HDD. Scores are as follows:

Browser 1-Firefox 3.6.13 - 5587/50000 rwb points

Browser 2-Comodo Dragon 60.10 (based on Chromium) - 9448/50000 rwb points

Not much faith in their programmers... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664594)

I don't have much faith in this benchmark, or the company/their programmers, for that matter.

My browser gets identified as:

Browser Family: safari Browser Version: 534.6

Oddly in contrast, the "About Chromium" has a somewhat different version and "Browser Family". (A later build, not sure which at this point.)

Interestingly, my browser didn't perform all that well on any of the tests.

Re:Not much faith in their programmers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664602)

That's what you get for choosing stupid browser supreme high ultra commander.

Re:Not much faith in their programmers... (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664616)

We're just reporting what JQuery reports. We'll get a better browser identification library and get more accurate values.

Re:Not much faith in their programmers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664966)

Any chance of actually reporting the real comparative results to go with the real benchmarks?

Re:Not much faith in their programmers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665536)

We're just reporting what JQuery reports. We'll get a better browser identification library and get more accurate values.

While you're at it, would you mind adding a justification as to why this is a "real-world" benchmark as compared to V8 or Kraken?

Re:Not much faith in their programmers... (3, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664846)

Chrome is reporting both as safari and as chrome, it even includes a safari version number, as a minimum safari-version it is compatible with. When Chrome is spoofing to anyone not specifically testing for Chrome, it is hard to blame anyone misdetecting them.

IE spoofs as Firefox (1, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665046)

When Chrome is spoofing to anyone not specifically testing for Chrome, it is hard to blame anyone misdetecting them.

That's nothing. Both Safari and IE report as Firefox. The "Mozilla/" in the user agent string represents Netscape Navigator, and the last versions of Netscape (8 and 9) were customized versions of Firefox. Moreover, WebKit browsers such as Safari and Chrome spoof as Konqueror and specifically recent versions of Firefox ("KHTML, like Gecko")

Re:IE spoofs as Firefox (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665428)

It all depends on where you place the name, but in essence you are right. It is a complete mess :D

A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark(tm) ?! (1, Informative)

HacTar (86396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664600)

The Most Useless Benchmark(tm)

Firefox 3.6.13 Performance (1)

KiwiSurfer (309836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664620)

Browser: Firefox 3.6.13
OS: Windows Vista Home Basic
CPU: Intel T1600 @ 1.66GHz
RAM: 2GB of RAM

Benchmark #1: 328 iterations
Benchmark #2: 10 iterations
Benchmark #3: 3005 iterations

FWIW

Re:Firefox 3.6.13 Performance (1)

KiwiSurfer (309836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664624)

Browser: Firefox 3.6.13
OS: Windows Vista Home Basic
CPU: Intel T1600 @ 1.66GHz
RAM: 2GB of RAM

Benchmark #1: 328 iterations
Benchmark #2: 10 iterations
Benchmark #3: 3005 iterations

FWIW

Sorry for replying to myself, just noticed 5132/50000 rwb points for the above benchmark. The overall score is shown at the top of the page.

They should show it on the bottom, since that's when most people will look for it.

How about a simple non-js SVG animation test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664628)

Count from 0000 to 1360 [imgh.us]
Firefox 4b8 works smoothly
Opera 11 has the jitters
Chrome never gets off 0000

Nothing new here... (1)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664638)

Chrome > Opera > FireFox

FF 3.6.13 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664640)

hardware : athlon 64X2 3600+ 2Ghz, 4Gb Ram
windows XP SP2
first run : 4400
second run : 4800 (minimized my other windows)

2010 27" iMac i7 (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664658)

1 - 684
2 - 55
3 - 8499

12508 / 50000

Re:2010 27" iMac i7 (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664694)

That says blazin' fast to me, you got a third of the ideal # of iterations on bumperbots. Was that on Safari?

Re:2010 27" iMac i7 (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664854)

  • Browser Family: safari Browser Version: 533.19
  • iMac 2.66 GHz i5 8GB
  • 11240/50000 rwb points
  • 622
  • 44
  • 7610

For what it's worth, there was a lot of stuff open (mail, photoshop, skype, etc.)

Re:2010 27" iMac i7 (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664880)

The code only maxes out one core at the moment, so your experience is in-line with what I see as well (I run while compiling and running the dev server with the box gettin' all swappy, and it runs okay even then).

Re:2010 27" iMac i7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664992)

12910/50000 on MacBook Pro 2.26GHz C2D 2GB Ram
1- 632
2- 56
3- 9810

running chromium 10.0.612.0 (69243)

Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664672)

Strangely enough I don't think bots which smack into each other and have collision sensors are very much real world. I don't plan on using my browser to animate bots colliding into each other in the forseeable future...

Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664762)

I don't think any of the tests were representative of real world HTML performance let alone the sprite collision detection, the article and the site are just a bad joke.

FarmVille (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665054)

I don't plan on using my browser to animate bots colliding into each other in the forseeable future

Video game developers do. If HTML5 proponents want it to replace Flash, it needs to be able to do so for FarmVille, Tetris, and all the other popular browser games.

FF 3.6.13 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664688)

hardware : Athlon 64 3500+ 2200 MHz 1Gb Ram
NetBSD-5.1 amd64

Browser Family: mozilla
Browser Version: 1.9.2.13
Score: 5090/50000 rwb points

1 - 326
2 - 16
3 - 2886

PC ability (2)

rhade (709207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664728)

How much of this is dependent on the pc?

Re:PC ability (2)

rhade (709207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664730)

and how do we know this is being done the most efficient way? The code needs to be peer reviewed

Re:PC ability (2)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664816)

Most efficient? No. First of all, we want to accentuate the positive with HTML5, and that means leveraging Web Workers and freeing up the DOM thread to do DOM-like things. That is tricky though, lotsa delicate messaging required between modules, and we only halfway refactored the code for that before the Christmas release deadline hit. So, I anticipate all Web Worker-capable browsers will double in Tasty script interpreter performance once we get a chance to implement that. But, as for now, we're single-threaded on the DOM thread.

Also, Chromatic is a computer languages and VM expert since he's been knee deep in Parrot code for years, and once he can get some wrench time in, I'm sure he'll provide all sorts of optimizations. What I put together isn't horrible architecture-wise, so don't let me sell myself too short.

Anyways, for now you'll have to settle for this being a measurement of how well your favorite JavaScript engine's optimizers can JIT compile my less-than-optimal Javascript into okay-fine machine code. :)

Re:PC ability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665252)

Apparently not much. I ran it on a 7 year old POS, and got a 6307.

results (1)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664754)

Latest Chrome on a Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop, AMD Turion 1.6 GHz 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon xPress 1150 using UMA
#1 - 503
#2 - 37
#3 - 6670

Your browser's total score is 9446 out of a possible 50000

IE8 same machine:
#1 - 94
#2 - 1
#3 - 465

Oddly, I cannot seem to copy and paste from IE.

A second run on IE8:
100/1/1215... it seems like minimizing the browser increases performance.
Let's try minimized on Chrome:
541/44/6701 - slight improvement. - Your browser's total score is 9884 out of a possible 50000

Let's try Chrome in a new tab and minimized (other results were in a new window)
548/45/6600 - 9890 out of a possible 50000

So, the benchmark seems to be affected by whether the browser is minimized or not. Might want to check to see if it's also affected by being in the foreground/background with multiple windows open, and also multiple tabs.

Re:results (1)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664774)

Egads, forgot to mention Windows XP. Seems Chrome beta (9.0.597.19) is faster on XP, even on a 4 year old laptop if my results on Chrome are directly comparable to others.

Re:results (1)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664902)

YES! Minimizing IE6-8 *DOES* improve performance, and I found that interesting as well.

My take is that IE is "close" to the kernel in a lot of ways, and so you get them turning off their blitter or whatever (even though the scene is still rendered in the offscreen buffer). IE really is a mix of very fast and very slow parts (mostly the JavaScript engine is the "slow".) You know, while I was developing that code, I found so many interesting ways to hack the code to squeeze out marginally better performance. IE8 is an odd egg, only slightly better than IE6 and 7, in my opinion. I'm praying IE9 will rock.

Re:results (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665150)

I'm praying IE9 will rock.

why? there's no reason to stick with a browser anymore, they're completely interchangeable, so if IE9 doesn't rock (or to put it another way, as IE6->8 don't rock) then get yourself Firefox, or Chrome or Safari or Opera. Really easy, and you'll get used to the interface in no time at all - in fact, you might like some of the fancy bits in some of the other browsers and think "why the heck did I ever use IE?"

Results for FF 4.0 beta 8: 469/30/4835 (7837 total). I'd have expected more for my 3 x 2.7Ghz AMD CPU, but the browser I'm using is a beta version, and it does hold up well against the other results people have posted.

Chrome 8 (1)

Talavis (906015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664780)

Chrome 8
Kubuntu 10.10
Phenom II X3 720
4GB RAM (in 32-bit)
Radeon 4700 (with fglrx driver)

11141 points.

YO !! HAPPY 2010TH BIRTHDAY, JESUS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664796)

How they all forget, ay !!

2010, right ?? You don't seem a day older than 2000, really !!

How are the folks ?? Is your dad still alive ?? How 'bout your mom, and how'd that ever happen ??

'Til next year !!

Yours,
(mankind !!)
(and the aliens who walk amongst us !!)

My Results (3, Interesting)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664858)

My results (running on quad-core Windows Vista 32-bit):

Chrome 8.0.552.224: 8641
Firefox 3.6.13: 5082
Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18999: 2145

Re:My Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34664892)

I too see about 40% gains of Chrome over Firefox (same versions) under Win7/64bit. (12.5k to 9k rwb points on Intel i5; using about 50% each of 2 CPUs.)

Re:My Results (1)

Bujang Lapok (1368641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665002)

My android phone (HTC desire/2.2) scores 2427. If this benchmark is to be believed, my phone is better than your quadcore machine for browsing JS heavy sites if you're using IE8.

Re:My Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665028)

Chrome 8 Six weeks ago?
Firefox 3.6.x JANUARY 2010
IE8 MARCH 2009

You can't be serious? This is completely ridiculous. Since it wouldn't be fair to just use betas either, you need to get the latest beta of IE and the nightlies of Chrome and Firefox on the day IE beta was released and then you do the test. I don't like IE, but since you can't get nightlies of it THAT is a fairer test.

Re:My Results (1)

root_42 (103434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665138)

AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2350, 2.6.35-22-generic Ubuntu x86_64 GNU/Linux

Chrome 8.0.552.224: 8008
Firefox 3.6.13: 4395
Konqueror: Did not pass... Hans during the first benchmark

Re:My Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665174)

I'm reporting results below for two reasons: 1) I don't think the test is reporting what I think it is -- this is obviously a JavaScript test and NOT an HTML5 test. 2) I'm testing free and open source browsers on 64-bit Linux and on a 3-year old T61p ThinkPad laptop, so this is completely different kind of environment than you tested. I think it's clear that the programs being run are single-threaded, so don't be surprised when some of the numbers below are higher.

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz
OS : Debian Sid, amd64, custom 2.6.36.2 kernel with no cgroups
          (i.e. not running the 3.6.37-rc latency enhancements)

Iceweasel/Firefox 3.5.16: 5517
Chromium "6.0.472.63 (59945) Debian 6.0": 11158
Arora 0.10.2, WebKit version 532.4: 7344
Opera 11.0, build 1156: 8717
Konqueror 4.4.5: did not run test (browser not identified, test stuck on "Wait a moment ...")

Note that Firefox 3.5 isn't HTML5 compliant, neither is Arora.

Re:My Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665400)

Something must be wrong...

>"My results (running on quad-core Windows Vista 32-bit):"
>"Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18999: 2145"

I got a score of 2245. On a Duron 1600. With 512MB PC-133 RAM. Running Fedora 12 and FF 3.5.15. With an older NV FX5200 AGP card. With Nautilus and Sudoku running in other workspaces.

My case does have a window on it, so that might be the difference?

I'm now tempted to see what my P-III/700 256MB laptop will do...

Re:My Results (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665438)

i7 920(2.66) stock on Win7x64

Chrome 9.0.597.19: 14,993
IE 8.0.7600.16385: 2438

Re:My iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665546)

I got 2575 on my iPad. WTF?

Re:My Results (1)

marjancek (1215230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665570)

> My results (running on quad-core Windows Vista 32-bit):
Quad-core running 32-bits?
And Vista?

I guess Santa doesn't read ./

Interpreted languages ftw (4, Insightful)

ponos (122721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664896)

Well, seeing a Mandelbrot algorithm running on an interpreted language on top of an interpreted language and
struggling on my super powerful quad core makes me suffer. I had coded the Mandelbrot fractal in assembly
and it ran faster on a 80386...

Now get out of my lawn...

Re:Interpreted languages ftw (3, Funny)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665074)

Don't you worry, one of these days, someone will write a full 386 emulator in JavaScript bringing the full Web 2.0 fidelity to your lawn.

And if you have an especially powerful rig, you'll even be able to use the 'turbo' button.

Re:Interpreted languages ftw (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665296)

I think someone is working on this in minecraft

Re:Interpreted languages ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665152)

You haven't seen my ZZT Mandelbrot set, have you? Takes about four days to finish a 44x15 16-color image on canonical ZZT on my fastest hardware-hypervised VM (CPU from a few years ago), though with a faster ZZT interpreter that uses a more natural internal representation for the ZOC it can run in about eleven minutes.

Re:Interpreted languages ftw (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665178)

yeah, mind the grass.

I was surprised at the language used: the basic code at the side showing the code it was running, complete with gosubs, I did think "WTF", but then I read the rest of the site - particularly the bit "ClubCompy is an innovative new service for kids of all ages to learn about computer programming?" and it all became clear, and took me right back to the old days when I was learning programming using code just like that.

Ah, happy days. I'm old enough now not to be surprised that things come full-circle like this. I'm not sure if this code runs significantly faster than it did on my old 8-bit 4MHz z80-based computer I had at the time though, but hey, this is progress :)

Agreed. Needs a better language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665236)

This a quadrillion times.
It saddens the hell out of me to see these, in comparison, super super super computers fall behind massively compared to such a simple processor from years ago.

I think, well, i would hope, that JavaScript and Java meet somewhere in the middle sometime in the future.
It's not like it needs to take long to compile Java anyway, even fairly large programs.
And look at the research Google has done with the Go language as well, that thing compiles pretty speedily, and will be especially useful as programs make the leap towards actual multi-core use and not just "oh here, you do this thread, you do this one, i will sit here at 97% idle, and you do whatever the hell you want" auto-scheduling nonsense. (worse because the people who make them most of the time don't even bother optimizing the things!)
With JavaScript and Java mashed together with the people who worked on Go, it could create a pretty powerful language, one that will actually allow for the web application era, instead of now where it is, quite literally, hacks upon hacks on top of unorganized mess.

It can keep the same syntax for the most part, just some new commands, less "COULD"s from the idiots at W3C, and for everybody to not give a damn about Microsoft collectively at the same time, forcing everyone away from the terrible Internet Explorer.
But oh NO, one day to tell people to upgrade their browser, with a list of them, is too much, we will lose billions! Seriously...
As for ActiveX, people who still use their intranet browser as their main browser should be shot. It isn't hard to install 2 browsers. Hell, every other (decent) browser already has "IETab" for crying out loud.
Sorry for the rant, just that people who complain about IE have no place to when they are the ones still developing for the crapware. (even IE9)
Simple page, message on every page to upgrade, DONE. Stop wasting hours on end on the piece of crap already.

Re:Interpreted languages ftw (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665412)

True. But had your Mandelbrot 16 million colors, HD resolution of 1920x1680 and could millions of clients access it with a generic software (the browser), which runs on Linux, Mac, Windows both in 32bit and 64bit and run it for them self?

MacProV8, Safari: 10851/50000 (1)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664900)

600/47/7291 One core maxed out during the tests. The other 7 sitting idle. So if the tests were multi-threaded the score would have been 86808 out of a possible 50000. :)

Re:MacProV8, Safari: 10851/50000 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665012)

Safari is just fast. Even on my iMac core2 duo 2.0Ghz (2007) i got 9340. However, Firefox 3.0.19 on MidnightBSD only scored 4029 on an AMD phenom 9600. On the same system, Chromium scores 10617.

1232 on my iPhone 4 (1)

RotHorseKid (239899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664978)

89/1/599 , iOS 4.2.1

Re:1232 on my iPhone 4 (1)

Bujang Lapok (1368641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34664998)

On a HTC Desire/Android 2.2 froyo, it scores 2427 (144/1/1627).

Browser is detected as Safari (as expected, since the default is webkit based).

Another Data Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665014)

AMD Phenom II 955 X4 , 8gb of DDR3 ram installed (3.25 usable), windows 7 - 32bit Pro, (i know... 8gb of ram with 32bit OS, need to reformat, 32 was all i had available on system build)
12303/50000 rwb points

my result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665078)

mine seems faster than other people, maybe chrome 10, maybe cos i have dual core processor and it only uses one processor
12928 using chrome 10 on core2duo e8400 @ 3ghz running windows 7 64 bit

OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers (3, Interesting)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665096)

MacBook Pro mid 2010 i5 2.4GHz, latest public browser versions

Firefox: 5055 / window minimized: 4930
Safari: 10628 / 11210
Opera: 9121 / 9487
Chrome: 10903 / 11035


On virtualized Windows XP home SP3 (Parallels desktop 6):

Firefox: 5878 / 6749
Opera: 9170 / 9734
ie 8: 1463 / 1440
Chrome: 10920 / 11392


Another reference point, virtualized Ubuntu 10.10

Firefox: 5165 / 6040
Chrome: 10769 / 11064
Opera: 8942 / 9500


Chrome was identified as safari 534.10 on all OS's. The results seem to fluctuate a bit from run to run, from 10 to 1500 points (i did some of the tests two - three times). It seems I get different results each time the test is run.

Obligatory result (3, Interesting)

rshane (27512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665144)

Core i5-650
8gb RAM
Windows 7

Firefox 4.0b8 - 8246/50000
Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 12611/50000

CR-48 (1)

limaxray (1292094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665318)

CR-48, Chrome OS 0.9.128.12: 4416

Another Result FWIW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665340)

2008 Macbook
2.0GHz | 5GB RAM

Chrome:8.0.552.231
(Not other tabs or apps open/running)

Score: 9135 / 50000

My Results (1)

talljustin (1051744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665490)

AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE 3.8ghz
4gb RAM
Windows 7 64bit

Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 17041/50000

Real world? (1)

sgunhouse (1050564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34665514)

Not sure how real any of those are. Bumper cars? A really slow paint function?

On my anemic (1.6 GHz Atom) system, Chrome gets 3986 while Opera gets 4250 (sorry, no Firefox installed).

So Real-World(TM)! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34665580)

Emulating BASIC programs from 1985 with GOTOs and line numbers in Javascript is what we do on the web all day.

Hey, did you know that ClubCompy is an innovative new service for kids of all ages to learn about computer programming?

kids of all ages = 40-something "kids" who are nostalgic for their first home computer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>