5 ms·

[Firefox] Jägermonkey: it’s in ur browser

100 points by setconndevp 16y ago

acqq 16y ago
I've tested http://nightly.mozilla.org/js-preview.html http://nightly.mozilla.org/js-preview.html with my simple benchmark loop (two floating point additions per pass) and it's really better: 300M passes of loop, time in seconds: 0.88 Firefox 4b6 2.26 Firefox 3.6.6 which is approximately 2.5 times faster. Now that particular loop executes at the same speed as ActionScript 3 (in Flash 10) with explicit typing. That's the big achievement for Mozilla.
- Maciek416 16y ago
  Here's some more data from Mozilla's own testing setup: http://arewefastyet.com/?machine=5 http://arewefastyet.com/?machine=5 Where JM+TM stands for "Jagermonkey + Tracemonkey". It looks to be gaining on V8 and Apple Nitro pretty fast, considering the timeline involved.
  - sp332 16y ago
    Gotta love the domain name + favicon :-)
    - unwantedLetters 16y ago
      Also like the big "No." mid page. The team seems to be pretty focused on getting to be faster than Chrome/Safari. Great idea to have a simple goal, and a simple answer to whether they have achieved it or not.
  - acqq 16y ago
    Looking at their v8 bench speedup: from 0.7 ms to around 0.3 ms we get again 2.3, comparable with the simple loop measurement. But interestingly enough, Google's V8 gets its speed in a very different way, as my mentioned benchmark loop performs much worse in Chrome: 3.9 sec on Chrome 6.0.472, thats 4.4 times slower than ActionScript or Firefox Beta 4.
endtime 16y ago
Seriously, why does everyone always ignore that Opera has a faster JS engine than Chrome? Google aren't the ones to beat!
- ianbishop 16y ago
  Can you provide any evidence to support this? The only metric I've ever seen Opera beat Chrome on was IE9's flying images benchmark.
  - brunt 16y ago
    It's ahead in the Peacekeeper benchmark, but falls just short on the Sunspider and JS tests. http://www.geek.com/articles/news/opera-10-6-tops-performance-test-but-comes-up-short-with-javascript-2010075/ http://www.geek.com/articles/news/opera-10-6-tops-performanc...
    - endtime 16y ago
      Gah, I was about to say that Opera beats Chrome at Sunspider on my machine, but then realized I was still running Chrome 5. Just upgraded. Here are the Sunspider numbers on my machine: Chrome 5: 315 Opera 10.60: 287.2 Chrome 6: 279.2 Point taken.
    - mbrubeck 16y ago
      The Peacekeeper benchmark has some glaring flaws in the benchmark code: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020664.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020664.html (For example, "The benchmark starts with an array of 100,000 elements and removes 20 elements for each call. After 5000 calls, the calls become no-ops, and the benchmark then times those no-ops.")
  - bd 16y ago
    I do a lot of experiments around the edge of browser performance (and also regularly check other folks' demos in multiple browsers). Benchmarks are not completely representative to "real world" performance. There are always some areas which work very well in particular browsers and areas in which some browsers are absolutely terrible. You can get practically arbitrary order of browser performance by mixing "do-good" and "do-bad" tasks. Subjectively, since recently Opera often feels faster than Chrome [1]. Not always, it's maybe 50/50 split, sometimes Chrome is faster, but in overall subjective experience Opera feels better (by a tiny bit). I suspect it's because Chrome excels mainly at "behind-the-scene" more numerical type of tasks, while Opera is faster at more tangible "in-your-face" things like DOM manipulation / rendering / canvas. Also, again subjectively, Opera's performance feels better "balanced". Chrome is crazy fast in some areas (see V8 benchmark), but slow/average in others. Opera is fast almost everywhere, so it has less bottlenecks. ----- [1] More objectively, from my stuff which has numerically comparable performance: http://alteredqualia.com/canvasmol/#DNA_crystal http://alteredqualia.com/canvasmol/#DNA_crystal On my notebook, this makes: - 29 FPS in Chrome 7.0.517.0 dev - 42 FPS in Opera 10.62 (45% faster) Though for some simpler molecules, Chrome is sometimes much faster. Go figure. ----- Another test: http://alteredqualia.com/attractor/#TPsP2jWzkUx22cuNN5XToJNVfuJb78617d2de79f9cd19YU0v1K0v000v00 http://alteredqualia.com/attractor/#TPsP2jWzkUx22cuNN5XToJNV... - 525 ms Chrome - 483 ms Opera (9% faster) [1 math unit, 1 rendering unit] ----- Case for "Chrome-has-faster-math", above example with "high detail" (which does more calculations compared to rendering): - 1611 ms Chrome - 2152 ms Opera (34% slower) [10 math units, 1 rendering unit] ----- Above with "wallpaper" settings (much more math, but also significant rendering): - 4304 ms Chrome - 5116 ms Opera (19% slower) [20 math units, 4 rendering units]
trop 16y ago
Can't get over how young the programmer team looks. Compared say, to Lars Bak who is 45-ish and working on V8... Whatever happened to the grizzled JIT writers?
- bonzoesc 16y ago
  They probably work at Apple or Google. Firefox seems to coast on a lot of recent graduates.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    Mozilla has really got to find a way to generate more profit. They live off of Google and that support may not always be there.
icode 16y ago
My app runs 20% faster now. Thank you, Mozilla!
herdrick 16y ago
Those new versions aren't compatible with any of my installed plugins. (If I can't get Tree Style Tab I'm just going to use Chrome.)
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  You have to update your extension's manifest every time a new version of Firefox is out. It is possible that your extension's maintainers haven't included Firefox 4 in their list of whitelisted versions even though it may work. Provided you are sufficiently technical and wouldn't mind dealing with crashes, install Nightly Tester Tools (now renamed to something more officially iirc, but searching for Nightly Tester Tools should get you there) and try to disable the compatibility check and see if it works. Back up your profile first so you can just copy it over again if something breaks horrifically.
  - herdrick 16y ago
    OK, thanks, I might try that.

100 points by setconndevp 16y ago

acqq 16y ago

I've tested http://nightly.mozilla.org/js-preview.html http://nightly.mozilla.org/js-preview.html with my simple benchmark loop (two floating point additions per pass) and it's really better: 300M passes of loop, time in seconds: 0.88 Firefox 4b6 2.26 Firefox 3.6.6 which is approximately 2.5 times faster. Now that particular loop executes at the same speed as ActionScript 3 (in Flash 10) with explicit typing. That's the big achievement for Mozilla.

Maciek416 16y ago
Here's some more data from Mozilla's own testing setup: http://arewefastyet.com/?machine=5 http://arewefastyet.com/?machine=5 Where JM+TM stands for "Jagermonkey + Tracemonkey". It looks to be gaining on V8 and Apple Nitro pretty fast, considering the timeline involved.
- sp332 16y ago
  Gotta love the domain name + favicon :-)
  - unwantedLetters 16y ago
    Also like the big "No." mid page. The team seems to be pretty focused on getting to be faster than Chrome/Safari. Great idea to have a simple goal, and a simple answer to whether they have achieved it or not.
- acqq 16y ago
  Looking at their v8 bench speedup: from 0.7 ms to around 0.3 ms we get again 2.3, comparable with the simple loop measurement. But interestingly enough, Google's V8 gets its speed in a very different way, as my mentioned benchmark loop performs much worse in Chrome: 3.9 sec on Chrome 6.0.472, thats 4.4 times slower than ActionScript or Firefox Beta 4.

endtime 16y ago

Seriously, why does everyone always ignore that Opera has a faster JS engine than Chrome? Google aren't the ones to beat!

ianbishop 16y ago
Can you provide any evidence to support this? The only metric I've ever seen Opera beat Chrome on was IE9's flying images benchmark.
- brunt 16y ago
  It's ahead in the Peacekeeper benchmark, but falls just short on the Sunspider and JS tests. http://www.geek.com/articles/news/opera-10-6-tops-performance-test-but-comes-up-short-with-javascript-2010075/ http://www.geek.com/articles/news/opera-10-6-tops-performanc...
  - endtime 16y ago
    Gah, I was about to say that Opera beats Chrome at Sunspider on my machine, but then realized I was still running Chrome 5. Just upgraded. Here are the Sunspider numbers on my machine: Chrome 5: 315 Opera 10.60: 287.2 Chrome 6: 279.2 Point taken.
  - mbrubeck 16y ago
    The Peacekeeper benchmark has some glaring flaws in the benchmark code: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020664.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020664.html (For example, "The benchmark starts with an array of 100,000 elements and removes 20 elements for each call. After 5000 calls, the calls become no-ops, and the benchmark then times those no-ops.")
- bd 16y ago
  I do a lot of experiments around the edge of browser performance (and also regularly check other folks' demos in multiple browsers). Benchmarks are not completely representative to "real world" performance. There are always some areas which work very well in particular browsers and areas in which some browsers are absolutely terrible. You can get practically arbitrary order of browser performance by mixing "do-good" and "do-bad" tasks. Subjectively, since recently Opera often feels faster than Chrome [1]. Not always, it's maybe 50/50 split, sometimes Chrome is faster, but in overall subjective experience Opera feels better (by a tiny bit). I suspect it's because Chrome excels mainly at "behind-the-scene" more numerical type of tasks, while Opera is faster at more tangible "in-your-face" things like DOM manipulation / rendering / canvas. Also, again subjectively, Opera's performance feels better "balanced". Chrome is crazy fast in some areas (see V8 benchmark), but slow/average in others. Opera is fast almost everywhere, so it has less bottlenecks. ----- [1] More objectively, from my stuff which has numerically comparable performance: http://alteredqualia.com/canvasmol/#DNA_crystal http://alteredqualia.com/canvasmol/#DNA_crystal On my notebook, this makes: - 29 FPS in Chrome 7.0.517.0 dev - 42 FPS in Opera 10.62 (45% faster) Though for some simpler molecules, Chrome is sometimes much faster. Go figure. ----- Another test: http://alteredqualia.com/attractor/#TPsP2jWzkUx22cuNN5XToJNVfuJb78617d2de79f9cd19YU0v1K0v000v00 http://alteredqualia.com/attractor/#TPsP2jWzkUx22cuNN5XToJNV... - 525 ms Chrome - 483 ms Opera (9% faster) [1 math unit, 1 rendering unit] ----- Case for "Chrome-has-faster-math", above example with "high detail" (which does more calculations compared to rendering): - 1611 ms Chrome - 2152 ms Opera (34% slower) [10 math units, 1 rendering unit] ----- Above with "wallpaper" settings (much more math, but also significant rendering): - 4304 ms Chrome - 5116 ms Opera (19% slower) [20 math units, 4 rendering units]

trop 16y ago

Can't get over how young the programmer team looks. Compared say, to Lars Bak who is 45-ish and working on V8... Whatever happened to the grizzled JIT writers?

bonzoesc 16y ago
They probably work at Apple or Google. Firefox seems to coast on a lot of recent graduates.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Mozilla has really got to find a way to generate more profit. They live off of Google and that support may not always be there.

icode 16y ago

My app runs 20% faster now. Thank you, Mozilla!

herdrick 16y ago

Those new versions aren't compatible with any of my installed plugins. (If I can't get Tree Style Tab I'm just going to use Chrome.)

cookiecaper 16y ago
You have to update your extension's manifest every time a new version of Firefox is out. It is possible that your extension's maintainers haven't included Firefox 4 in their list of whitelisted versions even though it may work. Provided you are sufficiently technical and wouldn't mind dealing with crashes, install Nightly Tester Tools (now renamed to something more officially iirc, but searching for Nightly Tester Tools should get you there) and try to disable the compatibility check and see if it works. Back up your profile first so you can just copy it over again if something breaks horrifically.
- herdrick 16y ago
  OK, thanks, I might try that.