Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unity Benchmarks Browser WebGL Performance (unity3d.com)

Posted by timothy on from the gears-gotta-spin dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Jonas Echterhoff from Unity has posted the latest Unity WebGL benchmark results on the Unity blog. He writes, "A bit over a year ago, we released a blog post with performance benchmarks for Unity WebGL, to compare WebGL performance in different browsers. We figured it was time to revisit those benchmarks to see how the numbers have changed. Microsoft has since released Windows 10 with their new Edge browser (which supports asm.js and is now enabling it by default) – so we were interested to see how that competes. Also, we have an experimental build of Unity using Shared Array Buffers to run multithreaded code, and we wanted to see what kind of performance gains to expect. So we tested this in a nightly build of Firefox with Shared Array Buffer support." The benchmark concludes that Firefox 42 64-bit is the fastest, Edge takes second, and Chrome and Safari share third place.

38 comments

  1. Unity is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You are all Plugin-less Cows. Cows say Mooo. Moooo! Mooo! Moooo cows Mooo! Mooo say the Cows. YOU UNIFIED COWS!!!

  2. Edge is IE by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Funny

    New name same buggy pony show. Nothing can beat Chrome

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:Edge is IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing can beat Chrome

      Except for Firefox and Edge. At least Chrome ties with Safari. Third is better than fourth!

    2. Re:Edge is IE by slart42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, the benchmarks speak a very different story. While IE is slow beyond use, Edge with asm.js actual performs pretty well, much better then Chrome.

      In general, I am very happy with the direction MS is taking with Edge, and have so far found it not to be "the new IE" at all, quite to the contrary. Following open web standards, maintaining public page to track new developments (https://status.modern.ie), great performance - all of this sounds very promising to me.

    3. Re:Edge is IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't competition grand?

    4. Re:Edge is IE by malditaenvidia · · Score: 2

      If it only had some manner of extension or userscript support. Browsing without ad blocking feels so 90's.

    5. Re:Edge is IE by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Except Chrome was not number one in any benchmark. In fact, it was between IE 11 and FireFox 46 in every single benchmark.

      Reading, it's neato!

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Edge is IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that this is Slashdot, where Edge == IE == garbage, Firefox == garbage, Google == unbeatable saviors of web browsers.

    7. Re:Edge is IE by short · · Score: 1

      Edge is finally opensource and crossplatform?

    8. Re:Edge is IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chakra, Edge's JavaScript engine, is going open source.

    9. Re:Edge is IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly do not understand Slashdot, or yourself for that matter.
      You assume that just because people express that they dislike something they have to like the thing they didn't mention. If you were to start advocating for Google you would soon find out that the Slashdot crowd consider *.* (Or #?) == garbage.
      That is what happens when you have a large userbase of developers that are getting on the older side of things.
      Not only is everything new and fancy worse than the old tried, everything NiH is crap and could be done better.
      Not that the thing you did yourself is any better, it's also crap but it would have been better had you just gotten some more time to fix it or written it in the right language or whatever excuse you have, but at least you know why it sucks.

  3. Firefix has been best at this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Back when Epic first ported Unreal Engine to run in a browser, the only browser it really worked well in was Firefox. Now, Firefox is still the best performer for these kinds of tasks.

    Now, commence with the replies explaining why Firefox is a memory hog and not worth using, but it's some kinda weird memory hog that for the past 3-4 years actually uses less memory than Chrome or any other browser.

  4. Comparison by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    According to the first charts Unity + Chrome 46 runs faster on a 2.6 GHz i7 + GT 750M MacBook Pro than a 3.3.GHz i7 + GTX 960 Windows desktop. Huh?

    Do these numbers prove certain browsers are faster, or that Unity is unevenly optimized?

    (Note: Firefox 41 is also faster on the MBP, though that can be attributed to Firefox for Windows being only 32-bit)

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Comparison by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      More likely that the Mac version of Chrome is optimized for Intel graphics chipsets (since most Macs have them), whereas the Chrome version for Windows has very little optimizations specific to a video chipset(which is a shame).

      I'd be curious to see the benchmark run on Windows 10 using the built-in Intel video chipset instead of the Nvidia and see if Chrome runs faster.

      Also, keep in mind Firefox and Unity have collaborated in the past to optimize the engine in the browser.

      https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...

    2. Re:Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox for Windows being only 32-bit

      They were also running 64-bit Firefox on Windows (see the first chart). It wasn't released in time for their benchmark, but Firefox 43 is out and has 64-bit builds available for Windows.

  5. Label your axes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is it so hard for people to label their f***ing axes!
    https://xkcd.com/833/

    1. Re:Label your axes! by slart42 · · Score: 1

      Well, benchmark results don't really have any units but are arbitrary numbers.

      Though, yes, it would have been better to label it with something like "results, higher is better", as that is not clear from the graphs.

    2. Re:Label your axes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally it should be "foo per second" or "microseconds per foo", but if the benchmark computes something more artificial, then how about using the labels "goodness" or "badness"? It's shorter than "results, higher is better", and people would easily get used to it.

  6. awesome, but still a little flaky.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our studio made a simple little xmas game to test out the webGL progress. www.waxeye.co.nz Pretty amazing what you can do with it 3d wise, but I've found it a little flaky for actual production use so far. It wasnt working in one of my chrome browsers.. tore my hair out a bit, then did a computer restart and it suddenly worked :/ The other trouble has been with iPhones.. I know it's not officially supported for mobiles yet, but seems to work great on higher end androids, but not so well on iphones. Don't know if it's to do with their lack of RAM, but it only seems to work on about 25% of tested iphones, the others get various javascript errors. Bit of a pain, but hopefully it gets sorted soon, lots of potential!

    klc

    1. Re:awesome, but still a little flaky.. by slart42 · · Score: 2

      Yes, this is mostly memory related. Browsers have a tendency to either crash when parsing all the code, or to run out of memory when trying to allocate the memory for the game itself (which emscripten implements using a single big array of bytes in JavaScript). See http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual...

  7. Unity is falling into the dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fad over this sort of game engines is disappearing and Unity is going to be the first to do so. Too many companies with now-dead games, strangled in the update cycle, specially in game consoles and iOS...

  8. Thanks for hanging my computer for ages and crashi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks guys, hitting that benchmark stuffs up my computer for minutes on end making it totally unresponsive then crashes the browser tab.

    Debian Jessie, Chrome 45.

  9. Free video in Edge will be silent by tepples · · Score: 1

    Following open web standards

    Which will reportedly soon include compatibility with royalty-free web codecs such as the WebM project's VP9. Yet video in royalty-free formats on Edge will be silent, as the same page states that support for royalty-free audio codecs Vorbis and Opus, used with WebM video, is still "under consideration". And does the only operating system for which Edge is available respect the privacy of web users, or does it by default report every visited URL to Microsoft?

    1. Re:Free video in Edge will be silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And does the only operating system for which Edge is available respect the privacy of web users

      Dude, you use Gmail and therefore you don't respect your own privacy or the privacy of others. That being the case, why would you expect Microsoft to respect your privacy more than you do?

      Microsoft's anti-Gmail ads are both accurate and amusing. Microsoft really couldn't understand end users' lack of self respect. Google and Facebook, on the other hand, realized the profitability of apathy early on.

    2. Re:Free video in Edge will be silent by tepples · · Score: 1

      That being the case, why would you expect Microsoft to respect your privacy more than you do?

      Your reply exhibits the tu quoque fallacy. The e-mail provider used for the account "tepples" on the website lashdot.org does not affect whether the Windows operating system makes it time-consuming to opt out of telemetry, or even impossible in the case of home editions.

    3. Re:Free video in Edge will be silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reply exhibits the tu quoque fallacy [wikipedia.org].

      As does yours when you start talking about privacy in the context of video and audio codecs, and codecs in the context of JavaScript and WebGL performance. Guy, you really need to have a think about yourself. Don't get so emotionally involved just because Microsoft's browser is fast.

    4. Re:Free video in Edge will be silent by tepples · · Score: 1

      Let me try to rephrase.

      Just because one web browser is the best at a single web platform feature, such as WebGL, does not make it the all-around best web browser. The best web browser is a combination of several factors:

      • Support for core web platform features
      • Support for optional web platform features such as WebGL
      • Support for free data formats such as WebM
      • Availability for multiple platforms, including platforms that don't have other serious flaws that make them undesirable

      Edge falls over in at least two of these: it's unavailable for anything but Windows 10, and it fails to support free audio and video data formats.

    5. Re:Free video in Edge will be silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does not make it the all-around best web browser.

      Who said Edge was the best all-around web browser? Your premise is faulty. You're arguing the wrong point.

      and it fails to support free audio and video data formats.

      You yourself linked to their roadmap for adding support for these. Edge supports Opus in ORTC (Skype, now owned by Microsoft, did contribute SILK to Opus after all) and VP9 support is coming. VP9 video won't be "silent" in Edge as you claim. In DASH the audio and video streams can be separate so you can easily have VP9 video and, say, AAC audio. YouTube streams video like this.

      Edge is going to support Opus in the video and audio tag eventually. Microsoft is part of the Alliance for Open Media which is working towards a new royalty-free video codec (aka NetVC). Additionally, Windows 10 has Matroska (aka the superset of WebM) and FLAC support.

      Microsoft is open sourcing Edge's JavaScript engine. And don't forget that with Edge's improvements to asm.js performance, and with WebAssembly support in the future, audio codecs become practical to implement in JavaScript.

      Take the time to study Edge and Microsoft's direction with this stuff. They're doing a lot.

  10. Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by tepples · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to test on Safari without buying a $499 Safari license? And if you're testing on Safari, is it also possible to test on Edge without paying another $199.99 for an Edge license?

    1. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has buying OS X or Windows got to do with anything? If you don't want to buy them, don't buy them. If you want a cross platform browser that runs WebGL fast, then use Firefox. It's the fastest today and, as Unity's testing with the nightly build demonstrated, Firefox's new features will unlock more speed in future.

    2. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it also possible to test on Edge without paying another $199.99 for an Edge license [microsoftstore.com]?

      https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/windows/

      Virtual Machine: "MSEdge on Win10".

      You already know about this site, chief, (a.k.a modern.ie ) so I'm surprised you didn't check yourself first.

    3. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to buy them, don't buy them. If you want a cross platform browser that runs WebGL fast, then use Firefox.

      That's fine on the user end, so long as you have administrator access to install Firefox. But if you are developing a site that relies on WebGL, how can you encourage your users to use Firefox? Or should you accept the browser that the user is already using? If so, then you have to test in every browser, and that includes buying a Mac on which to test in Safari.

    4. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, then you have to test in every browser, and that includes buying a Mac on which to test in Safari.

      You are confused. The simple fact is that there is no "have to", there is only "want to". If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you to.

    5. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by tepples · · Score: 1

      What you say is technically correct, in the sense of "You don't have to make a web site" or "You don't have to make your site compatible with Safari." It's just that the operator of a public web site is highly unlikely to rationally want to either stop making a web site or turn away users of OS X's pack-in browser or iOS's only browser engine that isn't run remotely. When you do intentionally give up on Safari users, you get vocal critics like this.

    6. Re:Need to buy a Mac and a copy of OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you do intentionally give up on Safari users, you get vocal critics like this

      Oh noes. Critics. How will we survive? If you want to support Safari users then support them.

      This is no different to developing any other piece of software for any other platform. You choose to use the feature or you choose not to. You choose to set the requirement or you choose not to. You choose to support the platform or you choose not to. There's no mystery or ambiguity here. These are the practical realities of software development. If it's not worth your time and money to support the platform, you don't support it; if it is, you do.

  11. Memory fragmentation in a single process by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think the conventional wisdom is that Firefox is a memory hog because after you open a bunch of heavy DHTML documents in tabs and then close them, the memory of the single Firefox process becomes fragmented until you close the last tab. Even a "Minimize memory usage" in about:memory may leave the process a hundred megabytes or more larger than that of a fresh launch. Until Electrolysis becomes the default, the only thing commonly run in a separate process is Flash Player, and that's been on its way out for years in favor of DHTML. Chrome, on the other hand, runs documents in separate processes, which lets it release memory to the operating system more thoroughly once those documents are no longer loaded.

  12. Graphics My Ass can't run WebGL by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've found it a little flaky for actual production use so far.

    That and laptops with Intel GMA that are stuck on OpenGL 1.4. WebGL requires at least OpenGL 2.0, which wasn't supported in Intel IGPs until HD Graphics. This means Westmere (2010) at bare minimum in desktops and full-size laptops, Sandy Bridge (2011) for any sort of performance, or Bay Trail (Q3 2013) for small or convertible laptops.