4 ms·
It's sad. PNACL is more efficient. Go to lichess.org/analysis, make a few moves, turn on the engine analysis. With firefox and WASM, my machine compute 300 kno
by lawthemi 9y ago
It's sad. PNACL is more efficient.
Go to lichess.org/analysis, make a few moves, turn on the engine analysis.
With firefox and WASM, my machine compute 300 knode/s.
With chrome and PNACL, my machine compute 2000 knode/s.
That's a big step backward.
- gok 9y agoI see nothing inherently more efficient about PNaCl. Both it and WASM expose an architecture-agnostic 32-bit virtual instruction set, then rely on the user agent to apply good optimization. WASM’s performance will improve. Non-portable NaCl did have the advantage that it could specifically target and optimize for one CPU architecture, and it had the beginnings of 64-bit address space support. These were nice, but not widely used. And we both could conceivably make it into WASM in the future.