9 ms·
Ehm, at least one of the tests they used is wrong. They used this one as WebGL performance test: http://luic.github.io/WebGL-Performance-Benchmark/ http://luic
by bd 13y ago
Ehm, at least one of the tests they used is wrong. They used this one as WebGL performance test:
http://luic.github.io/WebGL-Performance-Benchmark/ http://luic.github.io/WebGL-Performance-Benchmark/
Despite the name this program in fact doesn't use WebGL, it runs using three.js 2D canvas renderer (just check the source).
Additionally even the results they got there are suspicious, I got completely opposite results on my system (Windows 7), with Chrome being faster than Firefox by a large margin:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-8.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-ope...
They got 777 on Firefox vs 437 on Chrome, I got 290 on Firefox vs 441 on Chrome (this is fully in line with my everyday experience, doing browser graphics).
- glomph 13y agoToms hardware seem to consistently have methodology problems in their tests. I don't understand why they are given so much credence.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bd 13y agoAre you sure you are checking the right code? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26786471/img/luic-cubes.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26786471/img/luic-cubes.... https://github.com/luic/WebGL-Performance-Benchmark/blob/master/benchmark/cubes.html#L138 https://github.com/luic/WebGL-Performance-Benchmark/blob/mas... Also it gets rendering artefacts of 2d canvas renderer, console log confirms it runs CanvasRenderer and performance numbers are not consistent with WebGLRenderer (should be in order of 5,000-7,000 thousands of cubes at 60 fps). Disclaimer: I did write most of WebGLRenderer's code.
- simonster 13y agoOops, I was looking at the fill rate benchmark, but I see that the cubes benchmark does in fact use the CanvasRenderer, and this is the benchmark Tom's Hardware reports to have used. Sorry for the noise.