Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > New browsers : SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark Results.

Reply
Thread Tools

New browsers : SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark Results.

 
 
Jorge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Webkit r34469 vs. Opera 9.50 :

3.00x as fast 6339.6ms(Opera) 2109.8ms (Webkit)

-----

FF3.0 (final) vs. Opera 9.50 :

1.94x as fast 6339.6ms (Opera) 3269.6ms (FF3)

-----

Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :

1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)

-----

http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html

--Jorge.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregor Kofler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Jorge meinte:

> Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :
>
> 1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)


Safari 3.1.1 vs. FF3 (WinXP): 4909ms vs. 5602ms

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.

Gregor




--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Jorge <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> 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?

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
On Jun 18, 10:13*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Numbers on their own are meaningless.


Why ? The results show that it runs x times faster/slower on my
computer.
All the browsers were tested on the same computer.

> 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?


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.

>
> 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?
>


Hey, what's up ?
Take it easy...

Thanks,
--Jorge.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
On Jun 18, 10:12*am, Gregor Kofler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Anyway, how useful is a JS benchmark nowadays, which deliberately leaves
> out DOM perfomance?


Is JS core performance a don't care, then ?

> Since the benchmark is by Apple, I don't expect
> anything but "lightning fast" performance by their in-house browser.


Not so.
They must have been working hard lately,
these tests show no lightning-fast-performance here : look :

http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/02/f...e-performance/

That was in February. 15 days later :

http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/03/u...pt-benchmarks/

And today we are where we are :

Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :
1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)

--Jorge.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregor Kofler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Jorge meinte:
> On Jun 18, 10:12 am, Gregor Kofler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, how useful is a JS benchmark nowadays, which deliberately leaves
>> out DOM perfomance?

>
> Is JS core performance a don't care, then ?


No. But only a fraction of the speed of a JS application running in a
browser window will be contributed by the core performance. Typical "Web
2.0" applications rely heavily on DOM performance.

>> Since the benchmark is by Apple, I don't expect
>> anything but "lightning fast" performance by their in-house browser.

>
> Not so.
> They must have been working hard lately,
> these tests show no lightning-fast-performance here : look :
>
> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/02/f...e-performance/
>
> That was in February. 15 days later :
>
> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/03/u...pt-benchmarks/
>
> And today we are where we are :
>
> Webkit r34469 vs. FF3.0 (final) :
> 1.55x as fast 3269.6ms(FF3) 2109.8ms(Webkit)


One could argue, that they've tweaked their browser to outperform
competitors with their home-made benchmark...
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.

Gregor


--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
On Jun 18, 11:33*am, Gregor Kofler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.
>


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).

--Jorge.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Jorge <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jun 18, 10:13*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Numbers on their own are meaningless.

>
> Why ? The results show that it runs x times faster/slower on my
> computer.


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.
Sorry, I'm a trained scientist, pedantry is an occupational hazerd.

> All the browsers were tested on the same computer.


Good. That's the least to require.

>> 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?

>
> Browser : a browser is a browser.


Meh. A browser component running in a thin wrapper doesn't have the
memory footprint or other concurrent threads to handle that a full
fledged, highly skinnable browser+mail agent+news reader+irc
client+download manager does.

> Webkit is a browser as well.


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

> Open the browser, run the test. That's it. Nothing special. Try it
> yourself.


If I did that on my browser, I would open a browser with 30+ tabs,
a mail client checking mail and an IRC client connecting to a channel.
It would be likely to give worse results than if I opened a clean profile
with everything fancy disabled and no pages open.

I don't know that what you did, which is why I say that the number is
meaningless.

You could easily have done everything perfectly, eliminating as many
spurious influences as at all possible, but then again, you might
not. It would be equally wrong of me to assume either, which is why I
merely say that the numbers, by themselves, are meaningless.

>> And sorry, but I don't trust a benchmark hosted on the site of the one
>> performing best at that benchmark.

.... [and more of the same] ...

> Hey, what's up ?


Distrust of benchmarks, mainly
I'm remembering things like
http://www.geek.com/ati-driver-caugh...ark03-as-well/
and have a natural distrust of any benchmark that comes from the same
source as the products that scores highest on the benchmark.
It just smells like selective sampling. In science, procedures to avoid
selective sampling are introduced not only to prevent cheating, but
also, just as importantly, to remove subcontious bias.
In that case, the producers should make a serious effort to convince
people that is a balanced and generic benchmark. That hasn't happened
here (to my knowledge).

> Take it easy...


Oh, I do

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - (E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

....
> on Webkit, just as Internet Explorer is a browser build on the
> Microsoft Browser Component, and Firefox is build on the
>


Gecko browser component.

(Note to self: remember to finish sentences before moving on)
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - (E-Mail Removed)
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2008
On Jun 18, 8:26*pm, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


On the same computer, in the same circumstances, open a browser, run
the test, close it. Open another browser, run the test, close it.
Repeat for the third browser. Paste in the results and note the
difference.

The numbers obtained serve very well to *compare* one browser against
the other. I posted : browser a ran x times faster than browser b,
etc.
That's not meaningless, I think.
It does not matter whether the actual number was 5000mS, what matters
is that 2xmS is twice as much as xmS... no ?
And (x times faster) applies most likely to most other computers
running the same OS, as well.
The numbers themselves are meaningless if you intend to compare them
against results obtained in another computer/OS/whatever, yes.

I'm glad to see that JS performance for the last generation of
browsers is several times better. Don't you ?

Thanks,
--Jorge.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official: Nikon D3s the new benchmark in DSLR low noise capability RichA Digital Photography 15 02-21-2010 10:27 AM
Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis? El Kabong HTML 23 05-13-2007 08:55 PM
Finally, BEST compact digital tested...[New benchmark] kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com Digital Photography 74 07-04-2006 07:49 AM
Two Browsers work! Two browsers won't load. Internet game service won't load jimmie Computer Support 1 02-26-2006 08:36 AM
JavaScript blocked by new version browsers jfradette@videotron.ca Javascript 2 03-20-2005 01:53 AM



Advertisments