J
Jorge
Webkit r34469 vs. Opera 9.50 :
3.00x as fast 6339.6ms(Opera) 2109.8ms (Webkit)
3.00x as fast 6339.6ms(Opera) 2109.8ms (Webkit)
Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :
1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)
Jorge said:3.00x as fast 6339.6ms(Opera) 2109.8ms (Webkit) ....
1.94x as fast 6339.6ms (Opera) 3269.6ms (FF3) ....
1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit) ....
http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html
Numbers on their own are meaningless.
What were the configurations
used to perform the test? OS, CPU, etc? Any other pages open in the
browser? Was Opera's mail client enabled? Was WebKit used in
a browser (e.g. Safari) or run as a GUI-less batch job?
And sorry, but I don't trust a benchmark hosted on the site of the one
performing best at that benchmark. For all we know, Webkit could have
been microoptimized for exactly the tested tasks, and suck at
everything else. Probably not, but it wouldn't be the first time
something like that happened.
Is the sunspider test suite available for download and perusal, or
should we just read the page source?
Anyway, how useful is a JS benchmark nowadays, which deliberately leaves
out DOM perfomance?
Since the benchmark is by Apple, I don't expect
anything but "lightning fast" performance by their in-house browser.
Is JS core performance a don't care, then ?
Not so.
They must have been working hard lately,
these tests show no lightning-fast-performance here : look :
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/02/firefox-3-ultimate-feature-performance/
That was in February. 15 days later :
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/03/updated-web-browsers-javascript-benchmarks/
And today we are where we are :
Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :
1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)
Anyway, on WinXP the current Safari version is 10 to 15% faster than FF3
running a benchmark that measures core JS performance. IMO nothing to
write home about.
Jorge said:Why ? The results show that it runs x times faster/slower on my
computer.
All the browsers were tested on the same computer.
Browser : a browser is a browser.
Webkit is a browser as well.
Open the browser, run the test. That's it. Nothing special. Try it
yourself.
Hey, what's up ?
Take it easy...
on Webkit, just as Internet Explorer is a browser build on the
Microsoft Browser Component, and Firefox is build on the
That *what* runs faster? To understand the numbers, we need to know
how they were produced. E.g., how many other applications were running
at the time, how many other pages were open in the same browser, etc.
In other words, we need to be able to reproduce the setting and test
the numbers.
Webkit, if I read correctly, is a browser component. I.e., it only
hadles the display of the page. Safari is a browser that is build
on Webkit, just as Internet Explorer is a browser build on the
Microsoft Browser Component, and Firefox is build on the Gecko browser.
The non-release versions Safari are usually called "Webkit nightly
builds". If you go to nightly.webkit.org what you download is there an
app, that is a browser, that looks and behaves like Safari, but it's
called WebKit not Safari (it's name is WebKit). I used the name in
that sense.
Thanks,
--Jorge.
I recently found this article:http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2008/05/09/string-performance-an-analysis/
I think it highlights the concerns people have expressed. Something
innocuous in one browser is a horrible kludge in another. JS tests
can be very sensitive, too. Simple things like adding a setTimeout()
call between test runs can make a difference.
And the getTime() accuracy as well. There's a browser out there that
increments it in 16mS steps... I heard.
Standard is that 16mS means 16 milliSiemens, which is a conductance
corresponding to about 63 Ohms. Doubtless you mean what should be
written as 16 ms - the approximate duration of one cycle of the mains in
hasty countries.
The
underlying interval in WinXP is generally 15.625 ms, rounded to 1 ms
unless something changes it.
Jorge said:But you might be glad to learn that
-FF is almost as fast as the fastest.
-all of them are performing much better than before. (all but IE).
ISTM you have yet to learn that comparisons, especially but not excluded to
be those made in numbers, need a reliable reference base for them becoming
possible to be taken under serious consideration. For example, "almostas
fast as the fastest" (what?) alone is an utterly useless and pointless
statement about everything.
There are really much better ways to waste
bandwidth than posting it here.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.