tforsman Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 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.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/...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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tforsman Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 another benchmark with ffox 4 and chromium 11 too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 http://imgur.com/tucSu3605 for FF 4.01 in Arch 64 here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 9929 in Chrome 13.0.767.15083 in Firefox 4.0.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin.p Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tforsman Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 looks like always ffox always gets behind chromium, no mather what you do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I think it's because of Chrome's constant update cycle...Chrome 11.0.696.689559 Points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 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... :"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrat Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) 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 March 1, 2012 by abarbarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tforsman Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Thanks Tomas, that makes sense SRWare Iron 17.0.1000.0 = 9002 Compared with 2778 from above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrat Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 you guys are running beta test. As I suspected - different test. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.