6 ms·

Now, I remember that in a recent discussion there was some arguing on Firefox new JS engine whose results were benchmarked at a higher position than Chroome's.

by MrBra 12y ago

Now, I remember that in a recent discussion there was some arguing on Firefox new JS engine whose results were benchmarked at a higher position than Chroome's. So please try this on Firefox and then on Chroome and see the difference. Firefox is not yet there, sadly.

josteink 12y ago
As a Firefox-user (on Linux!) who don't feel like installing Google's closed-source spyware-browser, would you be shocked to hear me chip in and say: I don't care. I don't need my browser to drive full-screen 3D games & demos on my current-laptop hardware. That's not what I (or anyone else) is currently using their browser for. Maybe 5 years from now things will have changed. Maybe then truly everything will be in the browser. That's fine, but by then I will have bothered buying a newer, more powerful laptop, and the browser-engines will be even more improved and everything will probably be fine. But right now? Performance gap between browsers being put to use they're not being used for? Watch me care less. Honestly I'd much rather have people stop writing Chrome-only websites and going back to web-standards than having a faster JS-engine in my open-source browser, because that's not where things hurt these days. Edit: the hatred for web standards in this thread is staggering. How about a reply saying why you don't think a fragmented web is a problem instead of silently downvoting a legitimate concern?
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > As a Firefox-user (on Linux!) who don't feel like installing Google's closed-source spyware-browser Chrome is open-source Chromium plus an auto-updater and Flash.
  - josteink 12y ago
    Plus DRM and possibly other things Google is not telling us. It is a propriety browser distributed as a binary, effectively closed-source, so there is no way for us to know. Chromium! = Chrome and more people who realize that (and vocalize it) the better.
    - mschuster91 12y ago
      So what, anyone who wants to use Chrome-targeted websites/demos/games can just install Chromium and experience the same as a Chrome user. No problem at all.
      - josteink 12y ago
        Yes. Why bother about a fragmented world wide web where standards are second class if the new MSIE is partially open-source? Do you honestly not have a problem with that?
        mschuster91 12y ago
        There's enough competition in the web browser market to prevent a lock-in in IE6 scale. There's IE itself, still a massive force in enterprise, there's Firefox, there's Apple with its own Webkit fork in OSX/iOS... edit: also, these days browsers work together in standardization communities and implement stuff from other browsers. This was basically non-existent at IE6 time, in addition to IE6 being basically frozen and closed for years.
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  Think of this like a stress-test for the JS engine though. It's probably still useful to work out edge cases and odd performance issues. It's much better in 35.0a2 and that's good for everyone.
  - pcwalton 12y ago
    It's not a stress test for the JS engine. This benchmark is not JS-bound.
- Wintamute 12y ago
  I'm glad some people care about browser performance, care about creating art and apps that push performance, because without them we won't get to that future where there's a viable, open, free, standards based platform that people can use to challenge the dominance of truly closed source native app platforms. So yes I am shocked to hear that you don't care. And I'm a bit shocked to see you rant at a person that simply suggested Firefox's JS engine may not be as performant as Chrome's.
  - rimantas 12y ago
    You know, nobody stops anyone form making open source native apps.
    - Wintamute 12y ago
      I said native app platforms not native apps.
- icelancer 12y ago
  > Google's closed-source spyware-browser This is serious FUD with no evidence.
  - josteink 12y ago
    Closed-source is not disputable, it's a fact. Which leaves the issue of your privacy: do you know what Google records of your data when using chrome, where it gets uploaded and stored, and how often? I don't, and there's no way to know (due to closed source nature) so I don't trust it. That's not FUD. Those are facts.
    - bojo 12y ago
      You can examine your TCP traffic and verify that Chrome is or isn't doing anything with your data. That's a fact. A lot of security experts out there would be making noise if they discovered that Chrome was phoning home, or doing anything overtly malicious.
      - josteink 12y ago
        So do you not consider sending every keystroke in your address bar spying? I do. http://www.favbrowser.com/google-chrome-spyware-confirmed/ http://www.favbrowser.com/google-chrome-spyware-confirmed/ There's probably more, especially with sync enabled, like Google permanently storing your web site history, which cannot be verified from the client alone, because the server sync engine is 100% closed and hosted by Google.
        bojo 12y ago
        I don't consider it spying when you have the option to turn it off. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95656?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95656?hl=en Sync is pretty obvious since you clearly have no control over the backend. However, that is a non-issue for someone paranoid enough about where their data goes. Clearly you don't enable it. I think a healthy dose of paranoia in today's world is fine. I worry a lot about what apps are sending what data where, and whether I have control over that. You, however, seem to just be making blatant claims and touting them as fact. You are part of the problem because you are spouting what amounts to misinformation, and not considering that we have tools available to us with which to verify what an application actually does and whether it is malicious or not.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Yes, there are some cases where Chrome is faster than Firefox. There are also cases where Chrome is much, much slower than Firefox. In particular, Chrome runs asm.js games slower, and couldn't handle my WebGL Minecraft client. I also remember that IE used to have far better canvas performance than Chrome or Firefox since IE9 was the first browser to hardware-accelerate 2D rendering. From other comments in this thread, it sounds like things are improving in newer Firefox versions. There will always be worst-cases, but generally, I wouldn't say Chrome is really faster than Firefox.
ErneX 12y ago
Feels the same on both here (2008 Mac Pro).
pcwalton 12y ago
Plenty fast for me in Nightly. It's also disappointing to see that nobody in this big thread arguing about JS performance has pointed out that this demo is not JavaScript-bound at all. Profiling shows 80%-90% of the time is spent in texture upload and/or CoreGraphics. JS barely even shows up in the profile.

by MrBra 12y ago

josteink 12y ago

As a Firefox-user (on Linux!) who don't feel like installing Google's closed-source spyware-browser, would you be shocked to hear me chip in and say: I don't care. I don't need my browser to drive full-screen 3D games & demos on my current-laptop hardware. That's not what I (or anyone else) is currently using their browser for. Maybe 5 years from now things will have changed. Maybe then truly everything will be in the browser. That's fine, but by then I will have bothered buying a newer, more powerful laptop, and the browser-engines will be even more improved and everything will probably be fine. But right now? Performance gap between browsers being put to use they're not being used for? Watch me care less. Honestly I'd much rather have people stop writing Chrome-only websites and going back to web-standards than having a faster JS-engine in my open-source browser, because that's not where things hurt these days. Edit: the hatred for web standards in this thread is staggering. How about a reply saying why you don't think a fragmented web is a problem instead of silently downvoting a legitimate concern?

mschuster91 12y ago
> As a Firefox-user (on Linux!) who don't feel like installing Google's closed-source spyware-browser Chrome is open-source Chromium plus an auto-updater and Flash.
- josteink 12y ago
  Plus DRM and possibly other things Google is not telling us. It is a propriety browser distributed as a binary, effectively closed-source, so there is no way for us to know. Chromium! = Chrome and more people who realize that (and vocalize it) the better.
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    So what, anyone who wants to use Chrome-targeted websites/demos/games can just install Chromium and experience the same as a Chrome user. No problem at all.
    - josteink 12y ago
      Yes. Why bother about a fragmented world wide web where standards are second class if the new MSIE is partially open-source? Do you honestly not have a problem with that?
      - mschuster91 12y ago
        There's enough competition in the web browser market to prevent a lock-in in IE6 scale. There's IE itself, still a massive force in enterprise, there's Firefox, there's Apple with its own Webkit fork in OSX/iOS... edit: also, these days browsers work together in standardization communities and implement stuff from other browsers. This was basically non-existent at IE6 time, in addition to IE6 being basically frozen and closed for years.
voltagex_ 12y ago
Think of this like a stress-test for the JS engine though. It's probably still useful to work out edge cases and odd performance issues. It's much better in 35.0a2 and that's good for everyone.
- pcwalton 12y ago
  It's not a stress test for the JS engine. This benchmark is not JS-bound.
Wintamute 12y ago
I'm glad some people care about browser performance, care about creating art and apps that push performance, because without them we won't get to that future where there's a viable, open, free, standards based platform that people can use to challenge the dominance of truly closed source native app platforms. So yes I am shocked to hear that you don't care. And I'm a bit shocked to see you rant at a person that simply suggested Firefox's JS engine may not be as performant as Chrome's.
- rimantas 12y ago
  You know, nobody stops anyone form making open source native apps.
  - Wintamute 12y ago
    I said native app platforms not native apps.
icelancer 12y ago
> Google's closed-source spyware-browser This is serious FUD with no evidence.
- josteink 12y ago
  Closed-source is not disputable, it's a fact. Which leaves the issue of your privacy: do you know what Google records of your data when using chrome, where it gets uploaded and stored, and how often? I don't, and there's no way to know (due to closed source nature) so I don't trust it. That's not FUD. Those are facts.
  - bojo 12y ago
    You can examine your TCP traffic and verify that Chrome is or isn't doing anything with your data. That's a fact. A lot of security experts out there would be making noise if they discovered that Chrome was phoning home, or doing anything overtly malicious.
    - josteink 12y ago
      So do you not consider sending every keystroke in your address bar spying? I do. http://www.favbrowser.com/google-chrome-spyware-confirmed/ http://www.favbrowser.com/google-chrome-spyware-confirmed/ There's probably more, especially with sync enabled, like Google permanently storing your web site history, which cannot be verified from the client alone, because the server sync engine is 100% closed and hosted by Google.
      - bojo 12y ago
        I don't consider it spying when you have the option to turn it off. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95656?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95656?hl=en Sync is pretty obvious since you clearly have no control over the backend. However, that is a non-issue for someone paranoid enough about where their data goes. Clearly you don't enable it. I think a healthy dose of paranoia in today's world is fine. I worry a lot about what apps are sending what data where, and whether I have control over that. You, however, seem to just be making blatant claims and touting them as fact. You are part of the problem because you are spouting what amounts to misinformation, and not considering that we have tools available to us with which to verify what an application actually does and whether it is malicious or not.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Yes, there are some cases where Chrome is faster than Firefox. There are also cases where Chrome is much, much slower than Firefox. In particular, Chrome runs asm.js games slower, and couldn't handle my WebGL Minecraft client. I also remember that IE used to have far better canvas performance than Chrome or Firefox since IE9 was the first browser to hardware-accelerate 2D rendering. From other comments in this thread, it sounds like things are improving in newer Firefox versions. There will always be worst-cases, but generally, I wouldn't say Chrome is really faster than Firefox.

ErneX 12y ago

Feels the same on both here (2008 Mac Pro).

pcwalton 12y ago

Plenty fast for me in Nightly. It's also disappointing to see that nobody in this big thread arguing about JS performance has pointed out that this demo is not JavaScript-bound at all. Profiling shows 80%-90% of the time is spent in texture upload and/or CoreGraphics. JS barely even shows up in the profile.