Slashdot Mirror
IE9, FF4 Beta In Real-World Use Face-Off
An anonymous reader writes "Most browser benchmarks are isolated, artificial tests that can be gamed by browser vendors optimizing those specific cases. With only those benchmarks to go on, the folks at LucidChart were skeptical that the IE9 beta would actually outperform other modern browsers in real-world applications. To separate hype from reality, they built their first browser benchmarking tool, based in LucidChart itself. This benchmark is to SunSpider what a Left4Dead 2 benchmark is to 3Dmark Vantage. Product specs don't matter, only real-world performance on a real-world application. The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last."
Unless the test contains porn and all the accompanying popups, it's not a real world test.
t
No native Gopher support?
From my cold, dead hands!
THL phish sticks
The way this benchmark measures "intra-frame time" is broken. In particular, it uses a setInterval with a 1ms delay. No browser actually respects that 1ms. Chrome clamps it to 5ms; others clamp it to 10ms, all to avoid the website thrashing the CPU pointlessly.
The upshot is that Chrome's interframe delay in the graph is about 5ms and Firefox 3.6's interframe delay is aboug 10ms. Which this particular benchmark can't tell apart from "no delay at all", given its methodology.
Firefox 4 beta, IE9 beta, Safari, and Opera seem to have delays greater than 10ms, so they're clearly doing some work they can't finish in 10ms.... or have slightly buggy timer implementations. Or both.
Of course in practice frame rates above 60fps or so are pointless since the screen doesn't redraw that often. ;)
On the other hand, on Mac, on modern hardware, I get 4.5fps in Chrome 7 dev on a random trial document I just tried, with JS render tiems on the order of 7ms (with a 7ms standard deviation) and "intra-frame time" of 224ms with a 900ms standard deviation (yes, those numbers are nuts). Firefox 4 beta comes in at about 11s for the JS (with 3ms stddev) and 125ms for the "intra-frame time" (with a claimed stddev of 0, which looks really suspicious).
It'd be nice if there were non-obfuscated source for this benchmark so its number-crunching could be evaluated; that 0 stddev is ... highly improbable.
This benchmark can be run by anyone in LucidChart. First, sign up for a free account here.
Nuff said
(gmail passwords are now randomly rejected in FF, but work in any other browser).
Yeah, that would be the phishing malware screwing with you.
I use Firefox and IE regularly, have played with Chrome, and occasionally use Safari on the Macs at work.
I honestly can't notice any difference between any of them in rendering speed.
99.99% of the time, web browsing performance is network-limited anyway.
Surely standards support and browser stability are more important features, at least on platforms with more grunt than an iphone?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Actually, these results look very similar to the ones the WebKit guys (both chrome and safari teams) publish. They're almost always saying chrome and safari are similarly fast in the lead, firefox lags slightly, and IE8 is way slower... These are the same results as here. It just appears that IE9 is now added to the pile, and added at the top.
So what have we learned
1) Mozilla are good at lying about benchmarks (actually, we already knew that, they've been claiming the next big firefox release would be faster than everything for a while now)
2) IE9 is quick
The question is... is IE9 correct. I'll take works correctly but takes time over doin it rong quickly any day.
How have Apple and Microsoft handled your bug reports for Mail.app and Outlook? Did the handle them like Mozilla, where you enter the bug directly in their internal bug databases, monitor the progress, participate in discussions with the developers, and even contribute development yourself? Or do you have no idea what the status is, no influence on the outcome, and no ability to contribute at all? Were the bugs even submitted to development? Were you able to find a way to submit them to Apple and Microsoft at all -- could you communicate with anyone beyond level 1 end user support technicians?
Every application has bugs as old as its first release-- have you seen the age of some Windows security vulnerabilities, going back over a decade? -- and your particular concern won't necessarily get fixed. But if you compare the experience of handling end user bugs at Mozilla with the same thing at Apple or Microsoft, well, there really is no comparison.
I'm not sure how they get off calling this a "real world benchmark", as it seems to bear almost no resemblance to what people normally use web browsers for: "The benchmark works by simply dragging a part of the diagram around the page for five seconds." WTF?
It certainly doesn't seem to be any more useful than the other browser benchmark being touted these days, and arguably it's much less useful, because it measures a single very narrow aspect of browser operation, one which has little connection with typical browser usage.
Moreover, the slashdot summary seems to go to great lengths to emphasize how "badly" FF4 did on this (useless, remember) benchmark, and to pump up IE9: "The results were surprising. IE9 held its own pretty well (with a few caveats), and the latest Firefox 4 beta came in dead last" -- but if you actually look at the results that emphasis is misplaced: almost all the browsers were quite close to each other, with a few outliers, but in no cases was FF4 an outlier, and indeed was pretty much identical to IE9 (on this test).
The only clear result I can see is: When doing a certain very specific type of javascript rendering, most modern browsers have pretty much identical performance, though chrome's particularly fast, and IE8 particularly slow.
Of course, that isn't very interesting to anybody except LucidChart users, of course, nor very likely to generate any controversy...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Really, fuck it. I've had it with corporate-sponsored dick-fighting contest about which browser is the fastest. I really, really couldn't care any less. Features, openness, security, standards compliance, yeah. But If I want a fast app, I'll go native, thank you. Maybe I'm too old, but I've always thought HTML sucked as a programming paradigm. As an information distribution mechanism, sure. But for interactivity? Please. It's about time somebody called bullshit on this. Hell, a goddamn Visual Basic app from fifteen years ago kicked the butt of most modern web sites in usability, performance and ease of maintenance. The only thing that makes the web so attractive is the barrier to entry : free, nothing to install, immediate access to the average brains of millions. Just like TV. No thanks for dumbing it down to this. And now you wanna make it faster? Piss off. Go write real code that does something, not just another abstraction layer.
-- Home is where you eat your heart out.