24 ms·

Running Safari 11 on High Sierra and got a 90 on the speedometer 2.0 test referenced. Why are they bragging about a 66? For reference, ran the test with Firefo

Running Safari 11 on High Sierra and got a 90 on the speedometer 2.0 test referenced. Why are they bragging about a 66? For reference, ran the test with Firefox Quantum on the same machine and got a 68.

mc42 9y ago
Their banner graphic says that pre-Quantum Firefox scored 32 runs per minute, so I think it's quite the improvement.
vhbit 9y ago
Similar results here, Firefox is the slowest one: - Safari Technology Preview: ~80 - Vivaldi Beta: ~72 - Firefox Beta: ~57 - Firefox Nightly: ~54
- vhbit 9y ago
  With smooth scrolling disabled it's - Firefox Beta: ~59 - Firefox Nightly: ~57
comice 9y ago
compared to Firefox 52 and Chrome, it's a big improvement. And Safari isn't available on Ubuntu or Windows, so it scores a 0 on those platforms ;) https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/
- karkisuni 9y ago
  Was about to reply with a snarky link to the windows version of Safari but it looks like they've stopped development! Great point. Super interesting that building WebKit for windows from source is still supported though: https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/ https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/
tzs 9y ago
I get 35.82 on Safari 11 on El Capitan. What is your hardware? I wonder if I'm slower because I'm on older hardware, because I'm on an older version of OS X, or both? My hardware is a Mac Pro (Early 2009), 2.66 GHz quad core Xeon, 32 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC RAM, GeForce GT 120 512 MB. What I get: 35.82 Safari 11.0 (11604.1.38.1.7) 34.89 Firefox 57.0b3 32.01 Chrome 47.0.2526.106 31.44 Firefox 58.0a1 26.77 Firefox 55.0.3 I also for comparison gave it a shot on my Surface Pro 4 (Core i7, 2.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Intel Iris 540 GPU). Here are the results for Chrome 60.0.3112.113. Since I was running on battery I tried this at various power mode settings. Here are the results for Chrome 60.0.3112.113 arranged by power mode setting: 70.18 Best performance 69.61 Best performance (2nd time) 68.03 Better performance 50.84 Recommended 41.33 Battery saver There are two runs of "Best performance" because I did the tests in the order best, better, recommended, battery saver, and so all but the first may have benefited from caching from the previous. I ran best again after finishing battery saver to get a run of best that would have the same caching benefit the other may have received. For Firefox 57.0b3 I get: 54.34 Best performance 58.91 Best performance (2nd time) 57.91 Better performance 40.51 Recommended 34.28 Battery saver Edge on best performance gave 34.69.
- karkisuni 9y ago
  I'm on a iMac 2017 with a 3.8ghz i5, so yeah it might due to the newer hardware. Interesting that Firefox still scores roughly the same as Safari and Chrome on your machine too. I don't understand why they'd make this big fuss.

mc42 9y ago

Their banner graphic says that pre-Quantum Firefox scored 32 runs per minute, so I think it's quite the improvement.

vhbit 9y ago

Similar results here, Firefox is the slowest one: - Safari Technology Preview: ~80 - Vivaldi Beta: ~72 - Firefox Beta: ~57 - Firefox Nightly: ~54

vhbit 9y ago
With smooth scrolling disabled it's - Firefox Beta: ~59 - Firefox Nightly: ~57

comice 9y ago

compared to Firefox 52 and Chrome, it's a big improvement. And Safari isn't available on Ubuntu or Windows, so it scores a 0 on those platforms ;) https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/

karkisuni 9y ago
Was about to reply with a snarky link to the windows version of Safari but it looks like they've stopped development! Great point. Super interesting that building WebKit for windows from source is still supported though: https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/ https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/

tzs 9y ago

I get 35.82 on Safari 11 on El Capitan. What is your hardware? I wonder if I'm slower because I'm on older hardware, because I'm on an older version of OS X, or both? My hardware is a Mac Pro (Early 2009), 2.66 GHz quad core Xeon, 32 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC RAM, GeForce GT 120 512 MB. What I get: 35.82 Safari 11.0 (11604.1.38.1.7) 34.89 Firefox 57.0b3 32.01 Chrome 47.0.2526.106 31.44 Firefox 58.0a1 26.77 Firefox 55.0.3 I also for comparison gave it a shot on my Surface Pro 4 (Core i7, 2.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Intel Iris 540 GPU). Here are the results for Chrome 60.0.3112.113. Since I was running on battery I tried this at various power mode settings. Here are the results for Chrome 60.0.3112.113 arranged by power mode setting: 70.18 Best performance 69.61 Best performance (2nd time) 68.03 Better performance 50.84 Recommended 41.33 Battery saver There are two runs of "Best performance" because I did the tests in the order best, better, recommended, battery saver, and so all but the first may have benefited from caching from the previous. I ran best again after finishing battery saver to get a run of best that would have the same caching benefit the other may have received. For Firefox 57.0b3 I get: 54.34 Best performance 58.91 Best performance (2nd time) 57.91 Better performance 40.51 Recommended 34.28 Battery saver Edge on best performance gave 34.69.

karkisuni 9y ago
I'm on a iMac 2017 with a 3.8ghz i5, so yeah it might due to the newer hardware. Interesting that Firefox still scores roughly the same as Safari and Chrome on your machine too. I don't understand why they'd make this big fuss.