A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark

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."

Comments

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Frosty Piss]

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:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs?

[BeforeCoffee]

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

-- Dave

Re:Slashdotted already?

[santax]

Are you suggestion that most slashdotters are female?

Not much faith in their programmers...

[CAIMLAS]

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...

[BeforeCoffee]

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...

[Carewolf]

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.

A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark(tm) ?!

[HacTar]

The Most Useless Benchmark(tm)

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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.

Firefox 3.6.13 Performance

[KiwiSurfer]

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

[KiwiSurfer]

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.

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

[dakohli]

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:Slashdotted already?

[KiwiSurfer]

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.

Nothing new here...

[FireXtol]

Chrome > Opera > FireFox

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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!

My stats

[UBfusion]

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

2010 27" iMac i7

[ToasterMonkey]

1 - 684
2 - 55
3 - 8499

12508 / 50000

Re:2010 27" iMac i7

[BeforeCoffee]

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

[Paradise Pete]

• 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

[BeforeCoffee]

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).

Real World HTML 5 Benchmark?

[Haedrian]

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?

[bloodhawk]

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.

Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark?

[SanityInAnarchy]

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

Re:Real World HTML 5 Benchmark?

[DaVince21]

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.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Kilrah_il]

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

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

[RocketRabbit]

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.

PC ability

[rhade]

How much of this is dependent on the pc?

Re:PC ability

[rhade]

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

Re:PC ability

[BeforeCoffee]

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:Could you please post your scores + H/W Specs?

[Eirenarch]

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?

[vbraga]

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?

[msclrhd]

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

results

[ThreeGigs]

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

[ThreeGigs]

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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

[gbjbaanb]

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.

Re:results

[BeforeCoffee]

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.

Re:results

[Z34107]

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.

Re:results

[smash]

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.

Re:results

[smash]

IE9 is not out yet.

scores + H/W Specs

[surveyork]

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

Chrome 8

[Talavis]

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

11141 points.

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

[beelsebob]

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?

[gnalle]

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?

[BeforeCoffee]

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?

[BeforeCoffee]

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. ;)

My Results

[bgarcia]

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

[Bujang Lapok]

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

[root_42]

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

[Bengie]

i7 920(2.66) stock on Win7x64

Chrome 9.0.597.19: 14,993
IE 8.0.7600.16385: 2438

Re:My Results

[marjancek]

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

I guess Santa doesn't read ./

Re:My Results

[yoshman]

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)

Re:My Results

[bgarcia]

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.

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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?

[BeforeCoffee]

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.

Interpreted languages ftw

[ponos]

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

[Seth Kriticos]

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

[gbjbaanb]

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 :)

Re:Interpreted languages ftw

[Anonymous Coward]

I think someone is working on this in minecraft

Re:Interpreted languages ftw

[devent]

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

[Wingsy]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[hairyfeet]

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

1232 on my iPhone 4

[RotHorseKid]

89/1/599 , iOS 4.2.1

Re:1232 on my iPhone 4

[Bujang Lapok]

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).

IE spoofs as Firefox

[tepples]

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

[Carewolf]

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

FarmVille

[tepples]

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.

OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers

[jovius]

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.

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

[kainosnous]

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.

Obligatory result

[rshane]

Core i5-650
8gb RAM
Windows 7

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

CR-48

[limaxray]

CR-48, Chrome OS 0.9.128.12: 4416

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Phil Cassacoff]

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.

My Results

[talljustin]

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

Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 17041/50000

Beta 8 gets crushed too

[roju]

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

Real world?

[sgunhouse]

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).

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

[yiffyfox]

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

So Real-World(TM)!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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?

[camperslo]

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?

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

[0100010001010011]

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

For those wanting nightly builds

[camperslo]

Webkit nightly here:

http://nightly.webkit.org/

Firefox nightly here:

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

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

[thebjorn]

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.

Re:But, but, but,

[shadowzero313]

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

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

[terwey]

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.

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

[shadowzero313]

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

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

[dakohli]

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.

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

[RocketRabbit]

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.

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

[yiffyfox]

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

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

[teh31337one]

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

IE9 Platform Preview 7 Crashes

[HannethCom]

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.

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

[teh31337one]

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

Gosub?

[edibobb]

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

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

[sdstuart]

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

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

[Idbar]

Samsung Captivate 2167 (135,1,1362)

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

[memco]

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.

Linear Scale score?

[Dilligent]

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?

Re:But, but, but,

[Xtifr]

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!

Re:Slashdotted already?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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.

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

[x0n]

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

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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.

Re:Opera 11, FF4, IE9, Chrome 10 on Windows 7 64-b

[BeforeCoffee]

so detailed! Merry christmas, indeed!

Re:But, but, but,

[bradbury]

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.

my results

[orangeplanet64]

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

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

[swfranklin]

1296/50000

iPhone 4, Safari, iOS 4.2

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

[BeforeCoffee]

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

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

[smash]

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.

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

[smash]

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

i7 980x - 15349

[atlasdropperofworlds]

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.

Re:But, but, but,

[weicco]

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.

Re:But, but, but,

[DerPflanz]

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.

Mac benchmarks

[rsborg]

'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

Re:But, but, but,

[fatphil]

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.)

Another

[cjb110]

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