|
I got bored and tried out a new brower benchmark
http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action
What does it test?
Peacekeeper measures your browser’s performance by testing its JavaScript functionality. JavaScript is a widely used programming language used in the creation of modern websites to provide features such as animation, navigation, forms and other common requirements. By measuring a browser’s ability to handle commonly used JavaScript functions Peacekeeper can evaluate its performance.
What does it NOT test?
Peacekeeper is a JavaScript performance benchmark. It does not test your browser’s other features nor does it measure its security functionality. It does not check for W3C conformity, nor does it test external components such as Flash. It does not test, nor is the score influenced by, your internet connection speed or latency.
Really just out of boredom what runs fastest on my system.
What factors affect the score?
Other than the browser itself, the most significant factor affecting the score is the type of CPU in your PC. After that, the power of your graphics card affects the result somewhat, though mostly in situations where the card is very slow, or no drivers have been installed for it. Running other applications that consume system resources at the same time as the benchmark is running will naturally affect the score. The size of the viewable browser area also affects the score, so the screen resolution you use, the size of the browser window and whether the window is minimized affect the score as well. Beyond these, other factors are usually not significant. Your internet connection speed and network latency do not influence the score in any way.
|
I scored 1611 with crome raping my firefox scor prety hard witch only got 664 ^^
crome pwns  only need fire fox to watch gom...
|
Wow I thought my firefox score was bad, IE was even worse.
Interesting but I'm not going to change browser, everything renders fast enough for me already.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
On my mac, not my pc, FF got a tiny 313 and the new safari 4 got 1350. Safari 4 seems to render the pages noticeably faster as well. I don't think chrome is available for mac so I can't test it atm.
|
So much for those rumors of Safari sucking... I do admit that the amount of plugin and funsies is significantly less, but it is faster. You can't argue with that.
|
358 on ff 3.0.7
810 on chrome 1.0.154.46
woooooo
still using ff though.
and archaic, i'd like to see the new safari benchmarks compare to the old ones. there should be quite a big difference.
|
only 385 in opera damn so weak
|
United States3802 Posts
Welcome back Izzy! 
|
On March 14 2009 10:15 Archaic wrote:
So much for those rumors of Safari sucking... I do admit that the amount of plugin and funsies is significantly less, but it is faster. You can't argue with that.
Safari doesn't suck in fact it has a lot of good things it's more or less on par with opera with stuff but it's a big old clunky install and is ugly as shit as most people report the layout is so fucking puke worthy esp the tap on top does not do them well unlike in chrome.
|
On March 14 2009 09:34 Nytefish wrote:
Wow I thought my firefox score was bad, IE was even worse.
Interesting but I'm not going to change browser, everything renders fast enough for me already.
Yeah this is just JavaScript speed means like 30% of how fast webpages render for you other factors of the brower for how things render and most of it is how good is your connection to the server
|
Belgium6652 Posts
This doesnt really mean that much
|
Well have a fast cpu gpu and ram and a fios internet and guess what how your browser speed matters is like 99.9999999% the internet connection the rest is so minuscule that shit wont matter due to fast computer.
|
On March 14 2009 11:49 IzzyCraft wrote:
Well have a fast cpu gpu and ram and a fios internet and guess what how your browser speed matters is like 99.9999999% the internet connection the rest is so minuscule that shit wont matter due to fast computer.
That's not true anymore due to increasing complexity of web pages, and web apps that extensively use javascript.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
On March 14 2009 10:58 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 10:15 Archaic wrote:
So much for those rumors of Safari sucking... I do admit that the amount of plugin and funsies is significantly less, but it is faster. You can't argue with that. Safari doesn't suck in fact it has a lot of good things it's more or less on par with opera with stuff but it's a big old clunky install and is ugly as shit as most people report the layout is so fucking puke worthy esp the tap on top does not do them well unlike in chrome.
I know the older versions of safari were really really dodgy on any windows machine, but since I found out about safari 4 beta (today, thanks to this heh) I decided to give it a try. I don't know what the tabs looks like on xp but they look fine on vista.
|
ie7: 224
ff2: 248
opera 9(.02): 339
opera 10: 939
CPU at 3.0ghz. have it at 3.6 a lot of the time. Would bump up accordingly I assume, as this should all be CPU bound. Anyway, Opera 10 looks to be an improvement.
|
On March 14 2009 12:27 Bockit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 10:58 IzzyCraft wrote:On March 14 2009 10:15 Archaic wrote:
So much for those rumors of Safari sucking... I do admit that the amount of plugin and funsies is significantly less, but it is faster. You can't argue with that. Safari doesn't suck in fact it has a lot of good things it's more or less on par with opera with stuff but it's a big old clunky install and is ugly as shit as most people report the layout is so fucking puke worthy esp the tap on top does not do them well unlike in chrome. I know the older versions of safari were really really dodgy on any windows machine, but since I found out about safari 4 beta (today, thanks to this heh) I decided to give it a try. I don't know what the tabs looks like on xp but they look fine on vista.
They look like pieces of shit on xp i guess it's fine on vista but they just look like big brown green turds on my screen.
|
On March 14 2009 12:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
ie7: 224
ff2: 248
opera 9(.02): 339
opera 10: 939
CPU at 3.0ghz. have it at 3.6 a lot of the time. Would bump up accordingly I assume, as this should all be CPU bound. Anyway, Opera 10 looks to be an improvement.
Yeah rendering is depending on cpu limits so cpu less extent ram and gpu i'm using my non power pc i probably hit 2k with safari on my other comp and everything probably near or over 1000 on my i7 comp
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/CustomLover/asdas.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Bockit/images/safariUI.jpg)
