OK I know i am wasting a thread. But i was curious abt this particular test.
Post your scores in all the browsers you have on ur system for this test.
You will have to enable javascript/popups/images for the full test.
Disable them later! :)
http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchjs.html
no hard feelings. post ur scores! :) (10 posts)
-
OperaManiac
Posted 8 years ago # -
Explorer 6.x, Windows XP, 2.60-2.79GHz 18.48 seconds, March 1, at 14:04:32
ranking: 176 out of 502 testers
Firefox 0.8, Windows XP, 2.60-2.79GHz 17.05 seconds, March 1, at 14:06:09
ranking: 152 out of 502 testers -
Here are my results...keep in mind everyone's mileage will vary depending on processor speed, ram, etc.
Firefox 0.8, Mac OS, 1.00-1.09GHz (34.82 seconds)
Explorer 5.x, Mac OS, 1.00-1.09GHz (60.01 seconds)
Safari, Mac OS, 1.00-1.09GHz (57.2 seconds)
Note: Opera 6.2 or OS X never got past the second test, even with popups enabled. It just hangs. Also, it jumped past the first test without even displaying anything.
Has anyone looked at the JS they're using? Is it properly written, or are they cheating towards one particular browser? I've noticed all the top 10 results are from Opera 7.2/7.5, and all are in the 5-8 second range. That seems pretty far-fetched to me! Particularly since the Average Browser Results table shows Opera 7.2 at 19.69 seconds, and Opera 7.5 at 22.25 seconds, average.
-Tony -
Most impressive to me was that the #10 was a 99mhz or less Linux machine... That's REALLY impressive! Oh, and I went to grab Opera to try it out under Opera:
Opera 7.2x, Windows XP, 2.60-2.79GHz 7.27 seconds, March 1, at 14:16:53
ranking: 6 out of 502 testers
Go me! But I noticed a lot of glitches in the javascript drawing stuff under Opera that wasn't there under Firefox. And I was really surprised when it told me 7.27 seconds... it seemed to take MUCH longer. It wasn't noticeably faster than Firefox, yet for some reason my completion time was HALF the time under Opera... weird! -
antifuse,
That may be because they're not counting the time to *display* the results (at least in the last test, but possibly in others as well), just the time to do the computations.
So, one browser may do the computations twice as fast, but is particularly slow at displaying the results. In the end, since it's how fast the use *sees* the results, that's all that really matters. -
...hey, forget me... my iMac with safari took at least 5 minutes, i didn't finished the test, i was bored... Java box itself is only loaded at need on OS-X, so when i started, it took at least 15 seconds to load the java engine itself... and it's a s### to work with a old system like mine... i don't care, i like my iMac without any M$ in it!
-
Posted 8 years ago #i would trade a MS machine for a mac anyday.
even if its a G3 in exchange for a P4. :) -
tcervo: That could be it, yeah... since it seems to only add up the times to run the tests, even though it seemed to take the same time in both, Opera ran the tests themselves faster, but perhaps switching between tests took longer. Either way, I'm still sticking with Firefox, no ads PLUS I don't really care how fast Javascript runs :)
-
I'm also sticking with Firefox. I've never been able to understand the words in Opera. Perhaps if I spoke Italian it would be better ;-)
-
On my 1ghz PowerBook:
Camino took 19.13 seconds
Firefox took 42.02 seconds
IE took 67.22 seconds
Safari took 132.80 seconds!
http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/01/mac-browser-javascript-performance/
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
