A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark 163
Posted
by
timothy
from the global-variables dept.
from the global-variables dept.
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."
Slashdotted already? (Score:1)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we wish! I don't think even the OP is that naive.
Re: (Score:1)
Worked fine for me too, loaded in seconds.
Re: (Score:1)
Not much faith in their programmers... (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
IE spoofs as Firefox (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
It all depends on where you place the name, but in essence you are right. It is a complete mess :D
A Real World HTML 5 Benchmark(tm) ?! (Score:1, Informative)
The Most Useless Benchmark(tm)
Firefox 3.6.13 Performance (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Nothing new here... (Score:1)
2010 27" iMac i7 (Score:2)
1 - 684
2 - 55
3 - 8499
12508 / 50000
Re: (Score:1)
That says blazin' fast to me, you got a third of the ideal # of iterations on bumperbots. Was that on Safari?
Re: (Score:1)
For what it's worth, there was a lot of stuff open (mail, photoshop, skype, etc.)
Re: (Score:1)
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? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
FarmVille (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, it kind of looked like they were running some sort of BASIC on top of JavaScript...
PC ability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 singl
results (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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 performan
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Chrome 8 (Score:1)
Chrome 8
Kubuntu 10.10
Phenom II X3 720
4GB RAM (in 32-bit)
Radeon 4700 (with fglrx driver)
11141 points.
My Results (Score:4, Interesting)
Chrome 8.0.552.224: 8641
Firefox 3.6.13: 5082
Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18999: 2145
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
i7 920(2.66) stock on Win7x64
Chrome 9.0.597.19: 14,993
IE 8.0.7600.16385: 2438
Re: (Score:1)
> My results (running on quad-core Windows Vista 32-bit):
Quad-core running 32-bits?
And Vista?
I guess Santa doesn't read ./
Re: (Score:1)
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)
Interpreted languages ftw (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:1)
I think someone is working on this in minecraft
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
MacProV8, Safari: 10851/50000 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
1232 on my iPhone 4 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Browser is detected as Safari (as expected, since the default is webkit based).
OS X and virtual Win + Ubuntu 10.10, 4 browsers (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Obligatory result (Score:3, Interesting)
Core i5-650
8gb RAM
Windows 7
Firefox 4.0b8 - 8246/50000
Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 12611/50000
CR-48 (Score:2)
My Results (Score:1)
4gb RAM
Windows 7 64bit
Chrome 8.0.552.224 - 17041/50000
Real world? (Score:1)
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).
So Real-World(TM)! (Score:1)
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.
But, but, but, (Score:1)
What if I don't need either HTML5 or Javascript? Simple old HTML worked *fine* for a decade to do what it was designed for -- display information (and allow simple forms entry, e.g. electronic transactions). It did *NOT* require HTML5 nor Javascript. Those are applications for people who want to use *my* computer resources for *their* purposes [3].
It is reasonable to point out that Google has scanned 7 million books, PubMed/Medline has 21+ million records, and Wikipedia has 3+ million articles in English
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 wor
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 platfo
IE9 Platform Preview 7 Crashes (Score:2)
Note: This code is 2 releases after the Beta
On the second test it crashes.
Mac benchmarks (Score:2)
'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: (Score:1, Funny)
Sorry, my bad, didn't mean to post anonymously
-- Dave
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 r
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Those are some beautiful numbers! And that chrome score is monstrous! Thanks for testing iphone, I'm glad it woked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Famil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 vuln
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
My stats (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 NV
Beta 8 gets crushed too (Score:2)
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
scores + H/W Specs (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 allowe
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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 l
Re: (Score:2)
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
For those wanting nightly builds (Score:2)
Webkit nightly here:
http://nightly.webkit.org/ [webkit.org]
Firefox nightly here:
http://nightly.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:1)
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 Ubun
Re: (Score:2)
1296/50000
iPhone 4, Safari, iOS 4.2