19
Dec

SunSpider Benchmarks: WebKit Rocks

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry
    ECMAScript speed benchmark
    The WebKit developers recently released a benchmark on pure ECMAScript core performance, SunSpider 0.9. Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror fame has an analysis of how various browsers perform in The Great Browser JavaScript Showdown. Marcus Bointon has a sim...
    Weblog: Web Graphics
    Tracked: Dec 20, 21:03

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    I'm curious about two things: 1) The confidence intervals for each of the results, and 2) the result of the WebKit nightly build on Windows.
    #1 Mark Rowe (Homepage) on 2007-12-19 23:45 (Reply)
    The confidence levels in Mac Browsers was much better - typically 1-5%, whereas Windows browsers were 15-30%, with an occasional 85%. This is probably an artefact of using Parallels. I've just updated the benchmarks to include Opera 9.5a and WebKit Win.
    #1.1 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-20 12:03 (Reply)
    A confidence interval over 5% is *huge*. We typically see figures in the range of 0.1-0.3% during our testing. It often requires ensuring that very few background processes are running, but it makes for much more reliable results. 85% variance means that some iterations were nearly twice as fast as others, which indicates something is wrong either in the application being tested or the environment in which the test is run.
    #1.1.1 Mark Rowe (Homepage) on 2007-12-22 09:13 (Reply)
    In all curiosity, since you're trying betas of saf and ff, do you think you can try this out in an Opera 9.5 build too? The Opera Desktop Team blog should have some of those available for you. Opera changed scripting engine from Linear_B in earlier Presto versions ("Core", op7-9.25 that is) versions to Futhark in Kestrel ("Core2", op9.50) and Peregrine ("Core2", op10+), respectively), and Futhark is considerably faster than Linear_B for most things. On my system, op9.5 solidly beat saf3.0.4. Latest Webkit nightly crashes when loading, so I haven't been able to test that one.
    #2 liorean (Homepage) on 2007-12-20 04:23 (Reply)
    Done.
    #3 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-20 12:03 (Reply)
    I understand you ran the windows tests under Parallels. Are you sure the timing is reliable? If the script uses the VM's clock to time the results it is potentially skewed. I've done timing on VMs and the results were often wrong because the VM's clock is not running correctly.
    #4 Sven on 2007-12-20 12:50 (Reply)
    I agree that the timing accuracy is probably quite a way out, however, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that all browsers in the same environment are probably subject to roughly the same variation. Another factor is that when you run the benchmarks on IE vs Webkit, the difference is visually pretty obvious too. So, the stats I've done here are not in any way authoritative but they are at least roughly reproducible on my system, and seem to at lest vaguely correlate with the user experience in each browser. One conclusion is still inescapable - IE sucks, WebKit and Opera don't :*) Someone else is of course entirely free to post a similar set of benchmarks run on a real windows box - I just don't happen to have one handy.
    #4.1 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-20 13:14 (Reply)
    Any chance you could add Opera 9.5 for mac to the graphs? Not sure what Opera 9.5a means, it's in beta AFAIK. If you want the latest builds for mac/win/*nix this is the place: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
    #5 Erik Dahlstrom (Homepage) on 2007-12-21 11:04 (Reply)
    My mistake - it is indeed a beta. I was carrying over the request that the opera 9.5 alpha be added and didn't notice that it was actually a beta. I'm downloading The Mac beta now. BTW the main Opera download page is still broken for me.
    #5.1 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-21 11:21 (Reply)
    As you may have seen from the post update, I didn't succeed in running the opera 9.5 Mac Beta. I guess that's why it's still a beta...
    #5.2 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-21 11:42 (Reply)
    I posted some Opera 9.5b results by watching the benchmark running manually and noting the missing timings.
    #5.3 Marcus Bointon on 2007-12-21 17:36 (Reply)

Add Comment


You can use [geshi lang=lang_name [,ln={y|n}]][/geshi] tags to embed source code snippets.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.
 
























Calendar

Back March '10
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Show tagged entries

Powered by

Serendipity PHP Weblog