4 ms·

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

by itsbits 12y ago

acqq 12y ago
Run it with your Chrome and post the results: http://kripken.github.io/Massive/ http://kripken.github.io/Massive/
- fridek 12y ago
  I have Intel i7 running on Linux. Got 2,984 running Chrome 38 and 8,778 on Firefox 33, but I think now it's just fair to wait for couple of iterations of Chrome to identify bottlenecks and fix them. It's not uncommon for benchmarks to focus on some particular strength/weakness that is easily fixable. The same happened with Firefox and Octane 2.0.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    I'm not sure if Chrome is ever going to catch up to Firefox here. It's been slower than Firefox at asm.js ever since it was announced, because Chrome doesn't do AOT compilation for it. EDIT: Although I suppose JIT compilers would love asm.js as it has all the type info they want, but there's probably tons of overhead there thus explaining how Chrome has worse results.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      I would say Google team has other priorities....
      - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
        Yes, like trying to destroy the open web with NaCl.
        blibble 12y ago
        I don't really understand how asm.js is any different... you've still got applications compiled into binary blob, the difference between NaCl and asm.js being that asm.js just happens to be binary encoded as executable JavaScript.
        TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
        asm.js isn't a binary blob, it's JavaScript. It's not a threat to a web of open standards.
        cromwellian 12y ago
        It's a blob transpiled from C, not exactly how people imagined the Web working a few years ago. It's a non-W3C/TC39 approved set of compiler intrinsics/pragmas that switches on special behavior in one particular environment. When Dart was introduced years ago, Brendan Eich was all over HN complaining about how Dart2JS doesn't solve the problem, because DartVM would be more performance, and introduce a tendency to optimize JS VMs towards those semantics. Well, here we have a different problem. If asmjs takes off and everyone starts writing Web apps by transpiling C code, Mozilla will have forced a sea change in the Web, forcing all other vendors into ahead-of-time compilation to compete, and forcing JS VMs to optimize for this particular kind of code. Now, maybe that's not such a bad thing. I'm not arguing it isn't, but I think arguing "it's just JS, the syntax is the same, therefore it's open!" is somewhat disingenuous. ASMJS, if super successful, would create an implicit implementation spec for everyone. It will have in essence, created a language with identical syntax to Javascript, but with completely different expected execution semantics. Why? Because developers would come to depend on ahead-of-time compilation, depend on apps that basically use emulated malloc'ed heaps, etc. Imagine I took the Java language, removed "new" and forced all code to allocate DirectBuffers, and then said, all classes must consist of static final methods (no polymorphism), and can't have any fields or constructors. Call this ASMJAVA. I now assert, this is "Just java", hey, it runs in any JVM. Except, I'm shipping a new VM called "SuperExpresso" that does ahead-of-time compilation for my mobile platform based on this, and I'm telling people they don't need to use native SDKs, they can just transpile C code to Java. Did I create a new standard? I think I just did. Arguably, you can say the same thing about Android 4.4/5.0 "ART" runtime, or GWT which I work on. They use the Java "language", but the runtime behavior is completely different, and at least for GWT, we make no bones about this. So, this is not an attack on asmjs, but I do think there is a distinction between "reusing the syntax" of a language, and creating expectations of new semantics. Languages carry with them implicit sets of runtime performance characteristics, even bugs, that developers tend to treat holistically. Not many people care about what the specs say. They care about how it runs in the real world.
    - azakai 12y ago
      Chrome is currently slower, but the v8 team is working on a new optimizing compiler called TurboFan. There are indications in the source code that it detects asm.js code as a compiler hint of some form, hopefully this means it will eventually get quite fast on that type of content.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  I got 2,996 in Firefox and 1,277 in Chrome (2013 MacBook Air 13"). Interestingly, Chrome had much worse performance for float32 than float64... yet Firefox had slightly better performance. I guess the Chrome team implemented Math.fround yet none of the optimisations which make it useful!
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    I got a 4,690 on Firefox Nightly so there's so big improvements coming down the pipeline.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      I got 3,115 in Firefox Nightly. That's a slight improvement over the 2,996 in normal Fx, but not that big, really.
specialdragon 12y ago
Their 'copy results' isn't terribly useful however: http://pastie.org/9692975 http://pastie.org/9692975 My results, Chrome Version 38.0.2125.111 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 14.04

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

by itsbits 12y ago

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

acqq 12y ago

Run it with your Chrome and post the results: http://kripken.github.io/Massive/ http://kripken.github.io/Massive/

fridek 12y ago
I have Intel i7 running on Linux. Got 2,984 running Chrome 38 and 8,778 on Firefox 33, but I think now it's just fair to wait for couple of iterations of Chrome to identify bottlenecks and fix them. It's not uncommon for benchmarks to focus on some particular strength/weakness that is easily fixable. The same happened with Firefox and Octane 2.0.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  I'm not sure if Chrome is ever going to catch up to Firefox here. It's been slower than Firefox at asm.js ever since it was announced, because Chrome doesn't do AOT compilation for it. EDIT: Although I suppose JIT compilers would love asm.js as it has all the type info they want, but there's probably tons of overhead there thus explaining how Chrome has worse results.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I would say Google team has other priorities....
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      Yes, like trying to destroy the open web with NaCl.
      - blibble 12y ago
        I don't really understand how asm.js is any different... you've still got applications compiled into binary blob, the difference between NaCl and asm.js being that asm.js just happens to be binary encoded as executable JavaScript.
        TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
        asm.js isn't a binary blob, it's JavaScript. It's not a threat to a web of open standards.
        cromwellian 12y ago
        It's a blob transpiled from C, not exactly how people imagined the Web working a few years ago. It's a non-W3C/TC39 approved set of compiler intrinsics/pragmas that switches on special behavior in one particular environment. When Dart was introduced years ago, Brendan Eich was all over HN complaining about how Dart2JS doesn't solve the problem, because DartVM would be more performance, and introduce a tendency to optimize JS VMs towards those semantics. Well, here we have a different problem. If asmjs takes off and everyone starts writing Web apps by transpiling C code, Mozilla will have forced a sea change in the Web, forcing all other vendors into ahead-of-time compilation to compete, and forcing JS VMs to optimize for this particular kind of code. Now, maybe that's not such a bad thing. I'm not arguing it isn't, but I think arguing "it's just JS, the syntax is the same, therefore it's open!" is somewhat disingenuous. ASMJS, if super successful, would create an implicit implementation spec for everyone. It will have in essence, created a language with identical syntax to Javascript, but with completely different expected execution semantics. Why? Because developers would come to depend on ahead-of-time compilation, depend on apps that basically use emulated malloc'ed heaps, etc. Imagine I took the Java language, removed "new" and forced all code to allocate DirectBuffers, and then said, all classes must consist of static final methods (no polymorphism), and can't have any fields or constructors. Call this ASMJAVA. I now assert, this is "Just java", hey, it runs in any JVM. Except, I'm shipping a new VM called "SuperExpresso" that does ahead-of-time compilation for my mobile platform based on this, and I'm telling people they don't need to use native SDKs, they can just transpile C code to Java. Did I create a new standard? I think I just did. Arguably, you can say the same thing about Android 4.4/5.0 "ART" runtime, or GWT which I work on. They use the Java "language", but the runtime behavior is completely different, and at least for GWT, we make no bones about this. So, this is not an attack on asmjs, but I do think there is a distinction between "reusing the syntax" of a language, and creating expectations of new semantics. Languages carry with them implicit sets of runtime performance characteristics, even bugs, that developers tend to treat holistically. Not many people care about what the specs say. They care about how it runs in the real world.
  - azakai 12y ago
    Chrome is currently slower, but the v8 team is working on a new optimizing compiler called TurboFan. There are indications in the source code that it detects asm.js code as a compiler hint of some form, hopefully this means it will eventually get quite fast on that type of content.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
I got 2,996 in Firefox and 1,277 in Chrome (2013 MacBook Air 13"). Interestingly, Chrome had much worse performance for float32 than float64... yet Firefox had slightly better performance. I guess the Chrome team implemented Math.fround yet none of the optimisations which make it useful!
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  I got a 4,690 on Firefox Nightly so there's so big improvements coming down the pipeline.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    I got 3,115 in Firefox Nightly. That's a slight improvement over the 2,996 in normal Fx, but not that big, really.

specialdragon 12y ago

Their 'copy results' isn't terribly useful however: http://pastie.org/9692975 http://pastie.org/9692975 My results, Chrome Version 38.0.2125.111 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 14.04