14 replies to this topic

[tforsman]

Iv'e been testing the biggest browsers (firefox3, 4, Chromium, Opera) and ended up with a result i didnt think I would get.http://clients.futur...action?key=5TW8Uploaded with ImageShack.usSeems firefox need to optimize their browser alot more to render sites faster :)Run your test here: http://clients.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

[tforsman]

another benchmark with ffox 4 and chromium 11 too

[abarbarian]

http://imgur.com/tucSu3605 for FF 4.01 in Arch 64 here.  

[securitybreach]

9929 in Chrome 13.0.767.15083 in Firefox 4.0.1

[colin.p]

Firefox(v4.0.1) Scored:3171 PointsChrome(v11.0.696.68) Scored:6689 PointsI noticed the test in FF, especially the spaceships. were alot choppier. Might have spilled my beer, if I were in those ships, while I could have ate soup out of the bowl in Chrome.

[tforsman]

looks like always ffox always gets behind chromium, no mather what you do

[ChipDoc]

I think it's because of Chrome's constant update cycle...Chrome 11.0.696.689559 Points

[V.T. Eric Layton]

No it's more likely because G-Chrome is a lot leaner than most folks' FFs. If I were to strip my FF down to the same minimal capabilities of G-Chrome, it would probably score as good or better on these benchmark tests. The reality here is that these tests are unfair because the do not test the browsers in similar situations and setups. It's like running a 1/4 mile drag between a 70 Ford Mustang Mach I with a 351cu Cleveland engine against a 70 Camaro Z28 with and LT1 350cu and 500lbs of bricks in the trunk. Stripped to minimal capabilities, these two vehicles are somewhat evenly matched. However, add some "extensions" and "addons" in the form of bricks to the Camaro and you have an unfair match-up.

[ChipDoc]

V.T. Eric Layton, on May 22 2011, 01:12 PM, said:

Stripped to minimal capabilities, these two vehicles are somewhat evenly matched. However, add some "extensions" and "addons" in the form of bricks to the Camaro and you have an unfair match-up.

Yet I'm running extensions and addons in Chrome too.  Admittedly, I'm only running 8 of them, but it's a lot more than I ever ran in IE.Perhaps I'm only carrying 100lbs of bricks in the trunk...  

[sunrat]

Digging up an old thread here. I just ran Peacekeeper with Chromium 16 and Iceweasel 10. Scores are way lower than some posted above, but whether that's due to slow ADSL connection or graphics card or something else, I don't know. Still, more impressive than Ipad 2's 374!
I did notice that Chromium skipped the WebGL test and IW skipped the H264 test. Also IW has about 8 add-ons whereas Chromium has none.

Chromium 16:
3502
HTML5 Capabilities 6/7

Iceweasel 10:
1802
HTML5 Capabilities 6/7

It would be good if you guys who posted before would rerun with your latest browser versions. I think this test is probably not reliable to compare systems, but mainly to compare browsers on the same system. I'd also be interested to know if the test has changed since you last ran it.
The new URL for this test is http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/

[abarbarian]

Arch 64

FF 10.0.2

1495 HTML5 Capabilities 5/7



That is twice as slow as 9 months ago an a lot slower than sunrats latest figures ofr Iceweasle 10 and Chromium. Looks like FF is suffering from old age syndrome.  

Edited by abarbarian, 01 March 2012 - 07:36 AM.

[securitybreach]

I am starting to believe that these tests are meaningless as my numbers are not even close to last time:

SRWare Iron 17.0.1000.0:     2778
Firefox 10.0.2:                      1932
Chrome 19.0.1055.1:             3304


From back in May:

Chrome 13.0.767.1: 9929
Firefox 4.0.1: 5083

So either these tests are crap or the development has went way down on both FF and Chome.

[tforsman]

you guys are running beta test.

Try out the new BETA version of Peacekeeper - now works with any browser on any device, from desktops and notebooks, to tablets and smartphones. Includes many new and improved tests to give you a more accurate way of measuring and comparing browser performance.

Thats why you guys get so different results than before. run older one to see real results against older tests:

http://clients.futuremark.com/peacekeeper1/index.action

But i recommend to run newer one from now on, tests html5 and such stuff that are "useful" for a user to know about. As html5 is the future

[securitybreach]

Thanks Tomas, that makes sense


SRWare Iron 17.0.1000.0 = 9002

Compared with 2778 from above

[sunrat]

you guys are running beta test.

As I suspected - different test. Thanks.