New browsers : SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark Results.

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.

Jorge <jorge (AT) jorgechamorro (DOT) com> 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 - lrn (AT) hotpop (DOT) com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

On Jun 18, 10:13*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l... (AT) hotpop (DOT) com> 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.

On Jun 18, 10:12*am, Gregor Kofler <use... (AT) gregorkofler (DOT) at> 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.

Jorge wrote:

On Jun 18, 11:33 am, Gregor Kofler <use... (AT) gregorkofler (DOT) at> 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).

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, "almost as
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.


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

On Jun 22, 7:21*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de>
wrote:

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.

Might be.
But you would be asking "What the hell ?" if FF3 ran 2x slower than
FF2.

*There are really much better ways to waste
bandwidth than posting it here.

You're welcome too.

--Jorge.