5 ms·

The OdinMonkey engine performance is impressive. The Lua VM benchmark[1] jumped from 110 points in Firefox 21 to 318 points in Firefox 22! Not to mention poor p

by niutech 13y ago

The OdinMonkey engine performance is impressive. The Lua VM benchmark[1] jumped from 110 points in Firefox 21 to 318 points in Firefox 22! Not to mention poor performance of Chrome. Next, have a look at the Epic Citadel[2], which runs very smoothly in Firefox 22. Well done! [1] http://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html http://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html [2] http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/ http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/

masklinn 13y ago
The Lua VM benchmark seems to be compiled to asm.js though, how does chrome fare when not targeting asmjs?
- pornel 13y ago
  • Chrome 29.0.1546.0 canary: 91 points • Firefox nightly 25.0a1 (2013-06-26): 403 points MBP i7 2.2Ghz
- azakai 13y ago
  It would probably be slower with emscripten in non-asm.js mode (asm.js format is more careful to not change types at runtime, etc.), based on benchmarks I've tested in the past. Have not tested on this particular one, though, if you check it out please let us know.
fhd2 13y ago
It's a bit unfair to mention Chrome performing poorly on these. Both are asm.js, which OdinMonkey is optimised for, V8 not. That said, I'm very excited about asm.js (using it, in fact) and the performance in FF 22 blows me away as well. The V8 team appears to be working on asm.js optimisations, so soon we can have a fair contest :) The best thing about asm.js is that the optimisations are really optional, unless your application is actually CPU-bound. The Unreal Engine probably is, to some degree. A simple 2D game like the one I'm working on certainly isn't. Not seeing it run any faster with FF 22, it's already smooth in older versions.
- azakai 13y ago
  > It's a bit unfair to mention Chrome performing poorly on these. Both are asm.js, which OdinMonkey is optimised for, V8 not. Actually Chrome has been optimizing for compiled C++ for a long time - Google even added Mandreel code to the Octane benchmark - and for asm.js specifically (which is a particular type of compiled C++) in recent months, as you can track here http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-ubench http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm... http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-apps http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm...
  - bdash 13y ago
    It's a bit odd that arewefastyet.com stops showing results for JavaScriptCore when switching to the asm.js view.
    - azakai 13y ago
      JSC is also missing on Mandreel in Octane. Maybe the JSC shell lacks typed arrays?
      - kevingadd 13y ago
        If memory serves, JSC does not have typed arrays. The developer of Impact had to add them manually.
        azakai 13y ago
        Safari does have typed arrays though. I guess added in the browser, not in JSC itself?
        bdash 13y ago
        Nope, they work just fine from the `jsc` shell.
bad_user 13y ago
On my laptop, I got 419 points for Firefox 22 and 120 points for Chrome 28. Of course, the Lua VM test is compiled to asm.js, so of course Firefox does really well right now. Exciting nonetheless - this opens so many possibilities.

by niutech 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago

The Lua VM benchmark seems to be compiled to asm.js though, how does chrome fare when not targeting asmjs?

pornel 13y ago
• Chrome 29.0.1546.0 canary: 91 points • Firefox nightly 25.0a1 (2013-06-26): 403 points MBP i7 2.2Ghz
azakai 13y ago
It would probably be slower with emscripten in non-asm.js mode (asm.js format is more careful to not change types at runtime, etc.), based on benchmarks I've tested in the past. Have not tested on this particular one, though, if you check it out please let us know.

fhd2 13y ago

It's a bit unfair to mention Chrome performing poorly on these. Both are asm.js, which OdinMonkey is optimised for, V8 not. That said, I'm very excited about asm.js (using it, in fact) and the performance in FF 22 blows me away as well. The V8 team appears to be working on asm.js optimisations, so soon we can have a fair contest :) The best thing about asm.js is that the optimisations are really optional, unless your application is actually CPU-bound. The Unreal Engine probably is, to some degree. A simple 2D game like the one I'm working on certainly isn't. Not seeing it run any faster with FF 22, it's already smooth in older versions.

azakai 13y ago
> It's a bit unfair to mention Chrome performing poorly on these. Both are asm.js, which OdinMonkey is optimised for, V8 not. Actually Chrome has been optimizing for compiled C++ for a long time - Google even added Mandreel code to the Octane benchmark - and for asm.js specifically (which is a particular type of compiled C++) in recent months, as you can track here http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-ubench http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm... http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-apps http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm...
- bdash 13y ago
  It's a bit odd that arewefastyet.com stops showing results for JavaScriptCore when switching to the asm.js view.
  - azakai 13y ago
    JSC is also missing on Mandreel in Octane. Maybe the JSC shell lacks typed arrays?
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      If memory serves, JSC does not have typed arrays. The developer of Impact had to add them manually.
      - azakai 13y ago
        Safari does have typed arrays though. I guess added in the browser, not in JSC itself?
        bdash 13y ago
        Nope, they work just fine from the `jsc` shell.

bad_user 13y ago

On my laptop, I got 419 points for Firefox 22 and 120 points for Chrome 28. Of course, the Lua VM test is compiled to asm.js, so of course Firefox does really well right now. Exciting nonetheless - this opens so many possibilities.