4 ms·

I haven't noticed, but I usually stick Firefox (for firebug). Using the Flash version of the animation test posted a few days ago: http://themaninblue.com/exper

by mgcross 17y ago

I haven't noticed, but I usually stick Firefox (for firebug). Using the Flash version of the animation test posted a few days ago: http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash/ http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash/ I get 27-29fps in Safari 4.04 and 48-50fps in Chrome 5.0 beta (maybe because it's the beta?). Firefox gets around 44fps. [older mac pro - dual dualcore 3GHz, 6GB, 10.6.2]

sjs 17y ago
Framerate is not something I've looked at. It appears that Chrome beats the pants off of Safari just looking at that benchmark. Safari: 16-20fps Chrome: 100+ fps Here is my issue though. While playing a Flash video on break.com: Safari: http://imgur.com/yqoAi http://imgur.com/yqoAi Chrome: http://imgur.com/7PYXm http://imgur.com/7PYXm FlashBlock is a necessity for me. More than one crappy Flash ad nearly kills my old MacBook.
usaar333 17y ago
Nice test. It does seem that chrome's flash support is quite fast. I pull 75 fps in chrome and 65 fps on IE8 (windows 7 - Core2 Duo P9400); on my linux box, chrome's flash support definitely feels faster than in firefox.
- usaar333 17y ago
  I take that back; firefox's default plugin is significantly faster (on linux). At a much higher resolution (this test is very resolution dependent) on my Core 2 Duo 6600 running ubuntu 9.10, I get 25 fps in chrome and 30 in firefox.
riobard 17y ago
Emm, interesting result here on my machine (1st gen MacBook Unibody, 2.4GHz Core 2 duo, 4GB DDR3, running OS X 10.6.3): - Safari 4 using system default Flash plugin: ~28 fps - Chrome dev using system default Flash plugin: ~35 fps - Firefox 3.6 using system default Flash plugin: ~46 fps - Chrome dev using 10.1beta internal flash plugin: ~100 fps Seems the performance improvement is pretty huge (in this test case).
Pistos2 17y ago
Linux on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. Opera: 24-27 fps Chrome: 27-30 fps Firefox: 26-30 fps
harshpotatoes 17y ago
My 1.4ghz Celeron M gets 29fps in both iceweasel and Chrome in debian linux. I'm actually a little surprised at that, but I'll go with it.

by mgcross 17y ago

sjs 17y ago

Framerate is not something I've looked at. It appears that Chrome beats the pants off of Safari just looking at that benchmark. Safari: 16-20fps Chrome: 100+ fps Here is my issue though. While playing a Flash video on break.com: Safari: http://imgur.com/yqoAi http://imgur.com/yqoAi Chrome: http://imgur.com/7PYXm http://imgur.com/7PYXm FlashBlock is a necessity for me. More than one crappy Flash ad nearly kills my old MacBook.

usaar333 17y ago

Nice test. It does seem that chrome's flash support is quite fast. I pull 75 fps in chrome and 65 fps on IE8 (windows 7 - Core2 Duo P9400); on my linux box, chrome's flash support definitely feels faster than in firefox.

usaar333 17y ago
I take that back; firefox's default plugin is significantly faster (on linux). At a much higher resolution (this test is very resolution dependent) on my Core 2 Duo 6600 running ubuntu 9.10, I get 25 fps in chrome and 30 in firefox.

riobard 17y ago

Emm, interesting result here on my machine (1st gen MacBook Unibody, 2.4GHz Core 2 duo, 4GB DDR3, running OS X 10.6.3): - Safari 4 using system default Flash plugin: ~28 fps - Chrome dev using system default Flash plugin: ~35 fps - Firefox 3.6 using system default Flash plugin: ~46 fps - Chrome dev using 10.1beta internal flash plugin: ~100 fps Seems the performance improvement is pretty huge (in this test case).

Pistos2 17y ago

Linux on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. Opera: 24-27 fps Chrome: 27-30 fps Firefox: 26-30 fps

harshpotatoes 17y ago

My 1.4ghz Celeron M gets 29fps in both iceweasel and Chrome in debian linux. I'm actually a little surprised at that, but I'll go with it.