Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark

Posted by timothy on from the global-variables dept.

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."

163 comments

  1. Slashdotted already? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 0

    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!

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Slashdotted already? by santax · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you suggestion that most slashdotters are female?

    3. Re:Slashdotted already? by KiwiSurfer · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Slashdotted already? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    5. Re:Slashdotted already? by Phil+Cassacoff · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Slashdotted already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, *GET OUT OF YOUR MOM'S BASEMENT NOW***, masturbating to you fat sister's granny panties is just sick.

    7. Re:Slashdotted already? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      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!

      Sounds more like your browser completely failed the HTML5 test.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  2. Things to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  3. Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

    1. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1, Funny

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

      -- Dave

    2. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    3. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by dakohli · · Score: 2
      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

    5. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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!

    6. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    7. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Eirenarch · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by vbraga · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    10. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by msclrhd · · Score: 2

      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

    11. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    12. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    13. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by gnalle · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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?

    16. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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. ;)

    17. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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. ;)

    18. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by kainosnous · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
    21. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by yiffyfox · · Score: 2

      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

    22. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

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

    23. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't work at all in SRWare Iron.

      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

    24. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      No bragging here, early Core Duo MB 2 GHz GMA950 (2006) 10.6.5

      Firefox Minefield 4.0b9pre Browser Version: shown as 2.0b9 (build 20101224030347) Score: 5198
      Webkit Nightly Safari 534.15 5.0.3 (6533.19.4 r74228) Score: 9317

      (both browsers open with a few tabs, Flash disabled)
      I noted that both browsers ate extra CPU with the bench results page displaying, so I closed that tab while running the other browser. Not sure if test differs if scrolled to see whole test area instead of leaving page as loaded?

    25. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Model Name: MacBook Pro
        Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,1
        Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
        Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
        Number Of Processors: 1
        Total Number Of Cores: 2
        L2 Cache: 3 MB
        Memory: 8 GB

      Boot HD: 100GB SSD.

      Fans were going full tilt by time the thing was over.

      Chrome: 10.0.0.612.3
      Browser Family: safari
      Browser Version: 534.15
      Score: 12405/50000 rwb points

      Individual Benchmarks, respectively:
      615
      60
      9261

      Safari: 5.0.3 (6533.19.4)
      Browser Family: safari
      Browser Version: 533.19.4
      Score: 10053/50000 rwb points

      Individual Benchmarks, respectively:
      565
      41
      6663

    26. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm the AC above)
      It doesn't work in SRWare Iron v. 4.0.227.0, but it does work in the newest version (8.0.555.0)

      Same hardware specs/OS as above, it lists the browser as Safari 534.10.

      12407/50000 rwb points

      Bumper bots 693
      Screen Painter 86
      Mandelbrot Zoomer 7792

    27. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by thebjorn · · Score: 1

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

      Funnily, so did IE9 Beta (9.0.7930.16406). On my machine Chrome (same version as yours) got 13545 and IE9b got 13439.

    28. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by terwey · · Score: 1

      OS: Hacktint0sh 10.6.5
      Specs: Intel E5520 2.26ghz, 32GB DDR3-1333 ECC/REG, GTX275

      Chrome 9.0.597.19 beta:
      Score: 13198/50000 rwb points

      I never really use another browser besides Chrome anymore but for the sake of this benchmark I launched up some others. They might not be fully updated etc... Too bad ;)

      Firefox 3.5.2:
      Score: 4286/50000 rwb points

      Safari 5.0.2 (6533.18.5):
      Score: 10770/50000 rwb points

      And yeah I have a Win7 running dual-boot but not in the mood to reboot to test. Same goes for testing it under Ubuntu and what not ;)

      PS: would be nice if you collected all the data from the comments and release some nice graphs on your site.

    29. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by shadowzero313 · · Score: 1

      chrome 9 beta channel: 665+69+9411 (13070)
      ie9 beta: 159+3+2779 (3352)
      galaxy s fascinate (eclair): 148+1+1397 (2310) (getting froyo last october >_>)

      pc's running an i3 @2.13

    30. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by dakohli · · Score: 1
      Here are my Windows scores:

      HP tm2 (laptop)

      i3 1.2GHz 4 Gb RAM

      Intel Graphics

      MSie 8.0: 2005

      Mozilla 1.9.2.12: 4540

      HP Pavilion

      Athlone x3 425 (2.7 Ghz)

      8Gb Ram/Radeon 4650

      Mozilla 1.9.2.8: 7013

      MSie 8.0: 2214

      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

      So, what does this mean? I'm not sure. I can say that IE does not fare well. My Cell Phone compared closely to IE, my Tablet, beat it. Interesting results.

    31. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      I ran the benchmark again, and got 2607 on the iPad's Safari 533.17.9 with this breakdown: 163 iterations on #1, 3 iterations on #2, and 605 on #3.

      I don't have an iPhone (but the iPhone 4 has the same CPU as the iPad) but will run your benchmark on my wife's iPod Touch. It is older and slower though.

      The iPod Touch (2nd gen) scored 723 points. It runs the same Safari version as the iPad (533.17.9) and got 46 iterations on #1, 1 iteration on #2, and 433 iterations on the Mandelbrot set.

      Neat stuff, keep up the good work.

    32. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by yiffyfox · · Score: 1

      I like numbers =) here are some more, same Win 7 box as before, Chrome 9 really screams.

      17364 (866, 143, 12033) - Chrome 9.0.597.19 beta / safari 534.13
      9256 (551, 43, 5634) - Firefox 4.0b8 / mozilla 2.0b8
      4374 (170, 6, 4118) - IE 9.0.7930.16406 64bit / msie 9.0

    33. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by teh31337one · · Score: 1

      My Galaxy S i9000 running on a half baked Nexus S (android 2.3) ROM scores 3018

    34. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by teh31337one · · Score: 1

      Just scored 3190 by setting the screen timeout to 10 minutes, and not touching it while it ran the tests. Same setup.

    35. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by sdstuart · · Score: 1

      Score: 7957 Firefox 4.0b8 Intel Core i7 2.93 GHz 8GB DDR3 RAM Windows 7 x64

      --
      My SIG is a P220.
    36. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Samsung Captivate 2167 (135,1,1362)

    37. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by memco · · Score: 1

      Wow, I have the same model MBP with only 4gb of ram and a 320gb hard drive, and my fans didn't even kick on.

      I ran this on Webkit nightly (version 534.15) twice.
      1. 10202
      2. 9929

      I got those numbers with Mail, iTunes, MAMP, and eight other apps running.

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    38. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by x0n · · Score: 1

      This test is a crock of shit. Everyone is so delighted that IE9 is running last that they don't bother to ensure their objectivity, something this "test" certainly does not have. Either that, or the test authors are morons.

      DUH

      [meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" /]

      END DUH.

      -Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    39. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      thank you so much for the follow up, so cool that even the older ipod finished the tests!

    40. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      hah! My wife's macbook does the same thing ever since we upgraded her to snow leopard. Thanks for the fun story. :)

    41. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      ooh, that was not intentional, and is a bug. Very sorry, I honestly want IE9 to be great and was hoping to see scores for the new engine. I do not own windows 7 and msft refuses to backport to XP, so I haven't tested on ie9 beta. Again, sorry for the bug, didn't intend for there to be any bias.

    42. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by swfranklin · · Score: 1

      1296/50000

      iPhone 4, Safari, iOS 4.2

    43. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      if you have chromeframe installed, then club compy will take advantage of that

    44. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by smash · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people are still using IE

      Its because it is configurable via group policy, DHCP proxy autodetect actually works (unlike chrome, Firefox) and there is plenty of crappy old intranet style applications out there that businesses rely on that may/may not work in other browsers. It is also on just about every Windows machine connected to the internet, and as it can do all of the above, in the workplace there is little incentive to install an additional browser (thereby increasing your vulnerability exposure / software maintenance efforts) if you protect it with a traffic inspecting firewall.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    45. Re:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs? by smash · · Score: 1
      Safari 5 on OS X 10.6 with a 2007 spec mac mini core2 duo 1.8 (intel video).
      • Total score: 8740
      • Benchmark 1: 482
      • Benchmark 2: 29
      • Benchmark 3: 6013
      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  4. Not much faith in their programmers... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Not much faith in their programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Not much faith in their programmers... by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Not much faith in their programmers... by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Not much faith in their programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Not much faith in their programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

  5. A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark(tm) ?! by HacTar · · Score: 1, Informative

    The Most Useless Benchmark(tm)

  6. Firefox 3.6.13 Performance by KiwiSurfer · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Firefox 3.6.13 Performance by KiwiSurfer · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. How about a simple non-js SVG animation test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Count from 0000 to 1360
    Firefox 4b8 works smoothly
    Opera 11 has the jitters
    Chrome never gets off 0000

  8. Nothing new here... by FireXtol · · Score: 1

    Chrome > Opera > FireFox

    --
    Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
  9. FF 3.6.13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  10. My stats by UBfusion · · Score: 2

    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

  11. 2010 27" iMac i7 by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

    1 - 684
    2 - 55
    3 - 8499

    12508 / 50000

    1. Re:2010 27" iMac i7 by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:2010 27" iMac i7 by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      • 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.)

    3. Re:2010 27" iMac i7 by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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).

    4. Re:2010 27" iMac i7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      running chromium 10.0.612.0 (69243)

    5. Re:2010 27" iMac i7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari? Chrome? Firefox?

  12. Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    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...

    1. Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Think of it as a low-rez group porn scene?

    3. Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      Not to mention, it kind of looked like they were running some sort of BASIC on top of JavaScript...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      I can see sprite collision detection becoming a very real-world example when people are actually going to write browser games, which is the primary use for Canvas anyway.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  13. FF 3.6.13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  14. PC ability by rhade · · Score: 2

    How much of this is dependent on the pc?

    --
    http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    1. Re:PC ability by rhade · · Score: 2

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

      --
      http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    2. Re:PC ability by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 2

      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. :)

    3. Re:PC ability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  15. results by ThreeGigs · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:results by ThreeGigs · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:results by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:results by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:results by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

      completely agree, just want naive IE users to get a decent experience whenever they upgrade to the next version of windows. (windows 8 will be one of those rare win upgrades I will recommend to f&f when it comes out)

        I am displaying the standard "use at your own risk" message box when users launch the shell from the main site on IE and we detect there is no canvas tag support.

    5. Re:results by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      I had high hopes for IE9 as well, but they didn't pan out. On my system (2.93GHz Core2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX) IE9 got 4846 points versus Chrome 8's 9911.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    6. Re:results by smash · · Score: 1

      If you're in the corporate world there are plenty of reasons to stick with IE. Its already there, it can be secured adequately (security zones, filtering firewall at the edge), group policy and it actually works with DHCP proxy autodetect, which mozilla and chrome do not. Which is a big issue if you have mandatory proxy usage inside your network and roaming users who want their browser to work without it when outside.

      The UI issues are a non-issue, its the under the hood stuff that keeps IE on corporate desktops.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:results by smash · · Score: 1

      IE9 is not out yet.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  16. scores + H/W Specs by surveyork · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
  17. Chrome 8 by Talavis · · Score: 1

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

    11141 points.

  18. My Results by bgarcia · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    1. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.)

    2. Re:My Results by Bujang+Lapok · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:My Results by root_42 · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
    5. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    7. Re:My Results by Bengie · · Score: 1

      i7 920(2.66) stock on Win7x64

      Chrome 9.0.597.19: 14,993
      IE 8.0.7600.16385: 2438

    8. Re:My Results by marjancek · · Score: 1

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

      I guess Santa doesn't read ./

    9. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera mobile on HTC desire HD: 2072.

    10. Re:My Results by yoshman · · Score: 1

      Built in browser, HTC Desire, 1GHz ARM Cortex A8, Android 2.2: 2404 (137/1/1690)
      Chrome 8 (64-bit), Dell E4300, 2.4 GHz Core2Duo, Kubuntu 10.10: 11306 (652/61/7057)
      Rekonq (64-bit), Dell E4300, 2.4 GHz Core2Duo, Kubuntu 10.10: 10006 (576/27/6634)
      Chrome 8 (32-bit), MBP 2010, 2.4 GHz Core i5, OS X 10.6: 11475 (630/56/7686)

    11. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD Phenom II X6 @ 3.8ghz - Windows 7 x64.

      Chrome 10.0.614.0: 15466
      Chrome 9.0.597.19: 15588
      Firefox 3.6: 8111
      IE 8.7600.16385: 2581

      For some reason Chrome's 2d Canvas acceleration caused the benchmark to not render correctly. The sprites were fine but the borders/backgrounds were only on the bottom half of the canvas.

    12. Re:My Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit, standard GNOME desktop, slightly tweaked configuration (/tmp as tmpfs and a ridiculously large swap partition, all other configurations set to take fully advantage of this, not that the swap partition was ever touched during the test anyway).
      Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz, 3.9 GiB RAM
      Running streamed video from YoutTube (Voyager - 408-09 - Year of Hell) in one browser-tab during the test (a bit more realistic isn't it). There was sufficient with memory to run in RAM, the only thing that hit the harddisk was system logs and browser session history.

      Firefox 1.9.2.13: 6534
      Epiphany 2.30.2: 11192

      Epiphany is much nicer to other applications sharing the computer (at least with only this test and youtube running), but seem to cheat with screen updates during the BumperBots test.

    13. Re:My Results by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      Ha! I didn't even think about running this on my phone.

      I just ran this on my brand-spankin-new Nexus S running Gingerbread & got a 2482.

      Wow, that's just a really pathetic showing by IE.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  19. Interpreted languages ftw by ponos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      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 :)

    4. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think someone is working on this in minecraft

    5. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by devent · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    6. Re:Interpreted languages ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But had your Mandelbrot 16 million colors,

      Yes.

      HD resolution of 1920x1680

      Yes.

      It's called VESA Modesetting, you can set just about any resolution and color depth supported from a small ASM bootstrap with a few calls to the Video BIOS.

      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?

      And this is a feature why?
      There's a very important destinction between "running" and "being worth running".

  20. MacProV8, Safari: 10851/50000 by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    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. :)

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    1. Re:MacProV8, Safari: 10851/50000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  21. 1232 on my iPhone 4 by RotHorseKid · · Score: 1

    89/1/599 , iOS 4.2.1

    --
    Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
    1. Re:1232 on my iPhone 4 by Bujang+Lapok · · Score: 1

      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).

  22. Another Data Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  23. IE spoofs as Firefox by tepples · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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")

    1. Re:IE spoofs as Firefox by Carewolf · · Score: 1

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

  24. FarmVille by tepples · · Score: 2

    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.

  25. my result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  26. OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers by jovius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This test is a crock of shit - has nobody noticed the meta tag forcing IE to downgrade to IE7 compatibility? I stopped looking further into the implementation once I saw that.

      [meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" /]

      -Oisin

    2. Re:OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heard you the first time.

  27. Obligatory result by rshane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Core i5-650
    8gb RAM
    Windows 7

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

    --
    Shane
  28. Agreed. Needs a better language. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  29. CR-48 by limaxray · · Score: 1

    CR-48, Chrome OS 0.9.128.12: 4416

  30. Another Result FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2008 Macbook
    2.0GHz | 5GB RAM

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

    Score: 9135 / 50000

  31. hairyfeet has to eat his own words (3 times) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368

    "3 strikes you're OUT"

  32. My Results by talljustin · · Score: 1

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

    Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 17041/50000

  33. Beta 8 gets crushed too by roju · · Score: 1

    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

  34. Real world? by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    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).

  35. Re:My iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got 2575 on my iPad. WTF?

  36. So Real-World(TM)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. But, but, but, by bradbury · · Score: 0

    What if I don't need either HTML5 or Javascript? Simple old HTML worked *fine* for a decade to do what it was designed for -- display information (and allow simple forms entry, e.g. electronic transactions). It did *NOT* require HTML5 nor Javascript. Those are applications for people who want to use *my* computer resources for *their* purposes [3].

    It is reasonable to point out that Google has scanned 7 million books, PubMed/Medline has 21+ million records, and Wikipedia has 3+ million articles in English. All of that is information which does *not* require HTML5 or Javascript to distribute [1]. So *why* should I be concerned with HTML5 or Javascript which I try to avoid as much as possible?

    Why not provide benchmarks for the time it takes to restore complex sessions? Or the browser that can display sessions in minimal memory (so I can still use them on my 5+ y.o. HP Pavilion which only has 384 MB of main memory)? Or the browser that can successfully display the main pages of the 50 top newspapers in the U.S. in the shortest amount of CPU time (or memory usage)?

    Rise up masses of the WWW and tell the browser developers and reviewers [2] that "We don't need no stinken benchmarks for features we don't use or want".

    If you are a robust benchmark developer then add Dillo to the list browsers that you are benchmarking.

    [4].

    1. With the exception of NCBI PubMed/Medline who have been "seduced" by the Javascript genie and will no longer return PubMed Queries (something they did very successfully for ~15 years) without Javascript being enabled.
    2. ... and web page developers -- who don't seem to appreciate the concept expressed in Dragnet -- "Just the facts ma'am". And I don't need HTML5 or Javascript to get them.
    3. It could be argued that the only HTML5 that the majority of people have any interest in are those elements which allow them to use their computer as a TV. But I've already got a TV which behaves perfectly well as a TV! And of course the only thing Javascript is helpful for is filling out the two letter state codes in on-line purchasing forms for those who are typing and/or memory handicapped. Though the Javascript programmers are seldom clever enough to know when to select MA over ME.
    4. And does anyone ever notice that /. works just *fine* without enabling Javascript?

    1. Re:But, but, but, by shadowzero313 · · Score: 1

      sounds like you don't need an HTML5/JS benchmark all that much, then.

    2. Re:But, but, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not agree more. For me, the web is all about information, and information does not require a complex and glitzy interface.

      But the mad rush to provide an unforgettable web "experience" will only continue. HTML 5 will not be the end.

      "Experience" is the dominating catchword within this developmental crowd. To provide an ever increasing, ever captivating "experience" is all they know and understand.

    3. Re:But, but, but, by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      What if you don't need a web browser at all? Decrypting 1940s-era "secure" communications doesn't require all these newfangled applications. If the machines built at Bletchly Park were good enough for Allied Intelligence in WWII, they ought to be good enough for you. Or are you trying to say that you're better than those heroes that helped save the world?

      For that matter (and I actually think this may be a better analogy), why do we need interactive terminals at all? Batch processing with punch cards worked fine for decades. Who cares if it is orders of magnitude slower, overall, from the user's perspective? It's simple and uses minimal processor time, just like retransmitting an entire web page simply to change a few bytes is so much simpler than merely updating one element of the page via JS.

      And BTW, no I hadn't noticed that "/. works just 'fine'" w/o JS, unless by "just fine", you mean "like crap". (Not that the JS doesn't have its own set of problems and annoyances, but the overall net result is, at least for me, a Big Win(tm).)

      I do have to say that I'm impressed by your footnote #3, though. One of the best examples of a straw man argument I've seen in some time. "It could be argued X", where "X" is blatantly false, followed by "the only thing Y is helpful for is Z", where Z is far, far, FAR from being the only thing that Y is helpful for--just brilliant! I don't think you could have done better if you were actually trying to troll!

    4. Re:But, but, but, by bradbury · · Score: 1

      The point primarily was -- the distribution of simple information, which was what IMO the web was intended to do, does *not* require HTML5, nor Javascript. Indeed Google's Gmail points out that one can produce very functional apps without resorting to Javascript. If even some small amount of effort were put into maps.google.com or mapquest I'm sure those would work just as well without Javascript too.

      Yet I have *yet* to see a benchmark which measures the simple functions which are those needed for 95+% of what I happen to use the web for.

    5. Re:But, but, but, by weicco · · Score: 1

      I've been saying the same thing for almost 10 years now. Every time I've been blamed as a "troll". I'd like to have web which just displays information without hundreds of lines of CSS masturbation. For any more complex things I prefer rich apps which uses Web Services (or whatever) when communicating with server(s).

      But if five billion other internet users wants to have HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, Flash, etc. etc. who am I argue with them.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    6. Re:But, but, but, by DerPflanz · · Score: 1

      The point primarily was -- the distribution of simple information, which was what IMO the web was intended to do, does *not* require HTML5, nor Javascript.

      But, guess what, the web evolved. It isn't used any more for what it was primarily designed for. It evolved into a platform, where we (except you apparently) do shopping, communication, games, etc. The beauty of the whole thing, is the web is both things now. HTML5 lends itself perfectly for the semantic non-javascript web, with the new tags. It lends itself better for forms with the new input-types (why did we have to wait so long for that?). And it also lends itself for being a complete programming platform.

      HTML5 doesn't replace the web as it was intended, it amends it.

      I agree though, many web designers abuse Javascript to do things that are perfectly done in clean HTML.

      --
      -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
    7. Re:But, but, but, by fatphil · · Score: 1

      You, and I, are in a tiny minority. I think the only thing I use javascript for on the internet is when playing forumwarz (www.forumwarz.com - don't go there, you may sign up, and enable javascript)

      Alas, even /. doesn't work fully without JS. I think metamoderation doesn't work without it. (However, after writing scathing feedback in the recent request for review of /.2 vs /. classic, perhaps they've fixed that now.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  38. torturing kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    javascript has to be easier than goto/gosub with line numbers. so icky.

  39. For those wanting nightly builds by camperslo · · Score: 1

    Webkit nightly here:

    http://nightly.webkit.org/

    Firefox nightly here:

    http://nightly.mozilla.org/

  40. How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS, gart and others claimed that MSIE was the fastest. They would have to be lying for your results to be correct. So, you must be lying. After all, MS and Gart would NEVER lie.

  41. IE9 Platform Preview 7 Crashes by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    I am running Windows 7 64-bit and have IE9 Platform Preview 7.
    Note: This code is 2 releases after the Beta

    On the second test it crashes.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  42. Gosub? by edibobb · · Score: 1

    It's been a lot of years since I've seen a gosub, Basic line numbers, etc. used by this many people.

  43. Opera 11, FF4, IE9, Chrome 10 on Windows 7 64-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I wanted to see how OPERA 11, in particular, does on this HTML5 "benchmark", & here are the results (not only of Opera, but also of Chrome, FF, & IE9 (all in beta, Opera 11 is JUST OUT of beta)):

    ---

    CHROME 10 BETA = 15,450

    OPERA 11 (just out of beta) = 11,470

    FIREFOX 4 BETA = 7,795

    IE 9 BETA = 4,287

    ---

    System Hardware Configuration:

    CPU = Intel I7 Quad Core 920

    Video = NVidia GeForce 470

    Memory = 3gb DDR2

    HDD #1 = WD Velociraptor 10k rpm 300gb

    HDD #2 = WD Velociraptor/Viking 10k rpm 150gb

    SSD = GIGABYTE IRAM 4gb (temp ops, browser cache, logging by apps &/or system, %comspec% location, etc.)

    ---

    The browser that's surprising me, the MOST?

    Chrome 10 beta actually - I am finding it to be FASTER than Opera (seems so) on some things, & it renders websites a BIT BETTER (probably somekind of "std.'s compliance" stuff is my guess here though on WHY Opera's not as "compatible" w/ some sites as are IE, Chrome, & FF).

    I never thought I'd find a browser that *MIGHT* "take me away" from Opera, but... Chrome's pretty snappy!

    APK

    P.S.=> Those are my results for this HTML 5 test - I didn't see any OPERA results, so I decided to do one, for "posterities' sake"... & there you are: "Merry Christmas", all... apk

  44. Did they mean IE9 beta? I tested it... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924270&cid=34666372

    See my results there, for:

    IE9 beta
    Chrome 10 beta
    Opera 11 (just out of beta)
    FF 4 beta

    I'll tell you 1 thing on IE9 though, ahead of time:

    IE9's DOUBLING IE7/8 users on this test (from what I've seen thusfar @ least from others' results with close enough configurations, hardware-wise, to my setup)...

    APK

  45. Linear Scale score? by Dilligent · · Score: 1

    HTC Desire MIUI 12.18 2.6.25.9 HAVS AXI BFS -> 1.13GHz Score: 3973 Way to go, my desktop went to 13563, though, i must admit, the tests ran way slower on the phone than the numbers might suggest. Im guessing the score doesn't scale linearly?

  46. Re:Opera 11, FF4, IE9, Chrome 10 on Windows 7 64-b by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

    so detailed! Merry christmas, indeed!

  47. Likewise, & thank you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "so detailed! Merry christmas, indeed!" - by BeforeCoffee (519489) on Saturday December 25, @07:04PM (#34667670)

    Well, thank you, & likewise ("Merry Christmas")!

    APK

    P.S.=> However: It's NOT as "detailed" as it should have been though - as I forgot to list my caching diskcontroller in my "system hardware configuration" section from my last post you replied to now:

    PROMISE SuperTrak Ex8350 128mb ECC RAM Caching RAID 6 disk controller

    apk

  48. my results by orangeplanet64 · · Score: 1

    HP 8510w, T8300 2.4 GHz 4 GB ram, windows 7 x64

    Chrome 10.0.612.3
    #1 508
    #2 78
    #3 9767
    score: 11937

    Opera 11:
    #1 558
    #2 28
    #3 6510
    score: 9765

    Safari 533.19.4
    #1 508
    #2 36
    #3 6601
    score: 9437

    Firefox 4b8
    #1 347
    #2 20
    #3 4180
    score: 6184

    IE9 Beta
    #1 116
    #2 3
    #3 5230
    score: 5051

  49. i7 980x - 15349 by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 1

    i7 980x @ 4.4 Ghz, Win7 Pro.

    The test only uses 1 CPU it seems, so I never went above 7% cpu usage:

    Score: 15349

    828 / 123 / 9816

    I wish the JS compilers took advantage of parallel processing. Flash has for years now.

  50. Mac benchmarks by rsborg · · Score: 1

    '10 MBP 13" 2.4Ghz w/SSD maindisk:

    Firefox 4.0b8 = 6623
    320 / 33 / 4266

    Chrome 8.0.552.231 = 10018
    562 / 48 / 6630

    Safari 5.0.3 (6533.19.4) = 10210
    550 / 39 / 7135

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  51. I must state this negative on Chrome too though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amending myself:

    "...on some things, & it renders websites a BIT BETTER" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, @01:51PM (#34666372)

    Opera 11's BETTER on some sites too though, than Chrome is: E.G. -> youtube - Chrome shows missing adbanner "blocks", Opera's cleaner, it doesn't!

    (However - I am making this post in Chrome 10 beta, so... there you are!)

    APK

    P.S.=> That's after doing a few days testing on Chrome 10 beta here, vs. Opera 11 especially (betas really in both, Opera11's JUST out of beta)... apk

  52. Another by cjb110 · · Score: 1

    My results for Chrome 10.0.612.3 were around the 12k mark too, which seems to show that the browser performance is no where near what our CPU's are capable off. As the Intel i series is performing the same or worse! Either that or the engine in chrome 9/10 is vastly improved!

    Core 2 Duo 2.66 @ 2.81Ghz
    4Gb
    Win 7 64Bit

    --
    ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person