4 ms·
> I think it's also absurd that we accept such primitive rankings in the first place, although I myself have shared some of these reductionist claims. Fast at w
by freediver 4y ago
> I think it's also absurd that we accept such primitive rankings in the first place, although I myself have shared some of these reductionist claims. Fast at what? There's so many different conditions, so many things we could measure.
On macOS there is only one benchmark used by all sides to determine the 'fastest browser' title - Speedometer 2.0 benchmark.
It is used in Apple's marketing [1] and in Google marketing [2]
Blink had a brief lead in March when it reached 300, WebKit overtook, the just a few days ago (and a day before WWDC) Google claimed new best score (360 - I was not able to confirm [3]).
[1] https://www.apple.com/safari/#footnote-1 https://www.apple.com/safari/#footnote-1
[2] https://twitter.com/googlechrome/status/1533524079717892098 https://twitter.com/googlechrome/status/1533524079717892098
[3] https://twitter.com/vladquant/status/1534301507566202880 https://twitter.com/vladquant/status/1534301507566202880
- rektide 4y agoThanks. FWIW, Speedometer started with & always seemed like an Apple specific test. It greatly favors low optimization paths, because it's just loading app after app after app. It's basically not worth having optimizing compilers, because Speedometer is just testing initial load speed, more or less. That's a valid number, and I love that others (like Chrome) accept the thrown gauntlet as is, withiut protest, & compete. But this is not really indicative of what life will be like after the first 2s. Maps (or any other app) may run way way faster on an engine that focuses more on optimizing compilers. Thanks though, thanks for the links. Im not trying to invalidate this. But I do think it is limited, I do think it's origin & what it tests is worth noting in here. It's only one way of looking at performance.