# Browser Bechmark scores



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

I recently did a run on my favorite browser benchmark, Octane 2.0 and got over 20k, with all plugins enabled. This took me by surprise as I was expecting a 17k at most. This implies Mozilla has applied some new coding sauce to Firefox to make it faster.

This makes me wonder what everyone else is getting.






						Octane 2.0 JavaScript Benchmark
					

Octane 2.0 JavaScript Benchmark - the Javascript benchmark for the modern web




					chromium.github.io
				




Try it out and post your scores!


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jul 4, 2019)

10,422 on my Samsung S7


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 4, 2019)

was watching some video on youtube.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 4, 2019)

yakk said:


> 10,422 on my Samsung S7


Octane Score: 16710 on my Note 9 with Chrome


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 4, 2019)

wait is this geared towards phones?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> View attachment 126116
> 
> was watching some video on youtube.


Nice! Not too many plugins then?


Solaris17 said:


> wait is this geared towards phones?


AFAIK, it's geared towards all browsers.



biffzinker said:


> Octane Score: 16710 on my Note 9 with Chrome


Out of curiosity, what do you get with FF Focus? 

My GPD Q9 gets a paltry 4187 in FF for Android but gets a better 4926 in Iron. Not bad for a tablet going on 4 years old.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Nice! Not too many plugins then?



I only run 8


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> I only run 8


Wow, I would have guessed fewer. Yeah, I have 15 active plugins.  Most of them security related. The rest are theming or Youtube based.


----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

Palemoon 43890
version 28.6.0 64-bit


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 4, 2019)




----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

Athlonite said:


> 35711


what browser?


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 4, 2019)

Vario said:


> what browser?


 Soory it's Opera 60.0.3255.170 x64


----------



## Psychoholic (Jul 4, 2019)

google chrome here.


----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

Psychoholic said:


> google chrome here.


Chrome scores well for me too. 56499


Firefox scores similar to Palemoon. 43463


I've noticed chrome is the only browser that runs slither.io well enough to be competitive without using tamper monkey type scripts.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 4, 2019)




----------



## biffzinker (Jul 4, 2019)

Firefox Beta v68 on Note 9
Octane Score: 9579


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

Melvis said:


> View attachment 126129


What kind of PC is that?


----------



## Melvis (Jul 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> What kind of PC is that?



AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

Melvis said:


> AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80


Ah, that makes sense.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you get with FF Focus?


Note 9
Octane Score: 16372


----------



## johnspack (Jul 4, 2019)

Seems to favor Chrome.  Here's linux Chrome running on a 4 thread vm with Kubuntu as the os:


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 4, 2019)

johnspack said:


> Seems to favor Chrome.


Looks like it.


----------



## Hardi (Jul 4, 2019)

Edge Canary


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 4, 2019)

Desktop (No Overclock on CPU (PBO disabled) except 3200 @ DDR4-3466 MHz) - Firefox Quantum v67.0.4


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 4, 2019)

Firefox Quantum v 67.0.4 (64 bit)


----------



## Countryside (Jul 4, 2019)

Microsoft Edge 44.18362.1.0




Firefox Quantum v 67.0.4 (64 bit) 



Internet Explorer 11.175.18362.0


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 4, 2019)

MS Edge Canary | SMT disabled, PBO - auto.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 4, 2019)

Latest Chrome on my 14" HP laptop (i3 7100U @2.4GHz).


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Jul 4, 2019)

6600k @ 4.5ghz 1.25v


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 4, 2019)

My scores are properly hold back by the old hardware i have. I7 980X oc to 4.4 GHz. But it can still clearly be seen the difference between supported browsers and internet explore that no longer gets updates. I have not used any plug ins or other third party software. All browser are as they come stock.

Internet explore.





EGDE browser





Firefox


----------



## 27MaD (Jul 4, 2019)

I don't even have a small idea about this but i did it anyway


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 13, 2019)

Look like this thread got moved. Sorry about that folks.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 13, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Look like this thread got moved. Sorry about that folks.


Well everyone wanted all of the benchmark threads condensed into a benchmark section on the forums.


----------



## Voltaj .45 ACP (Sep 25, 2019)

2450m - win10 1903 tested when working 

Firefox 69.1
Octane Score: 16785

Chrome 77.0.3865.90 
Octane Score: 19815

Opera 63.0.3368.94 
Octane Score: 20011

IE11
7600 someting


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 25, 2019)

johnspack said:


> Seems to favor Chrome.



Or, in other words, Chrome is just faster at the functions this benchmark uses.

Chrome on my 8700K rig:


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 25, 2019)

Vivaldi2.8.1664.36 (Stable channel) (64-bit)


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 25, 2019)




----------



## micropage7 (Sep 25, 2019)

actually i never pay attention on that
but here is the score


----------



## Voltaj .45 ACP (Sep 25, 2019)

3700x stock chrome latest

Octane Score: 55182

Opera latest

Octane Score: 54737

weird opera was better today with 2450m but amd likes chrome?

chromium based edge beta

Octane Score: 52864

Firefox latest

Octane Score: 38339 wtf?


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Jul 31, 2022)

Hardware: Intel i3-3240 + 4GB RAM @1600MHZ single channel + NVIDIA GTX 650 1GB + EVO 850 500GB
Software: FreeBSD + Chromium


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 31, 2022)

i7 12700K @ stock


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 31, 2022)

It should be noted that Octane 2.0 is retired. Some good replacements can be found below;





__





						BrowserBench.org — Browser Benchmarks
					





					browserbench.org


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Aug 1, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> It should be noted that Octane 2.0 is retired. Some good replacements can be found below;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because Octane 2.0 is older than the new browserbench.org benchmarks, it sometimes makes sense to run Octane 2.0, especially if you want to compare with older CPUs. JetStream 2 was only introduced in 2019, so for countless older CPUs you will find little or no benchmarks with JetStream 2.

You can see that I now score more than 30000 in Octane 2.0. I can easily compare this to how certain CPUs used to score in this benchmark: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11859/91866.png

For example I can learn that my old Intel i3-3240 in 2022 is almost as fast as an i7 6800K so many years ago, or faster than the i7 5930K so many years ago. Just looking at the browserbench.org benchmarks makes it harder for me to get these kinds of insights.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

SchumannFrequency said:


> Because Octane 2.0 is older than the new browserbench.org benchmarks, it sometimes makes sense to run Octane 2.0, especially if you want to compare with older CPUs. JetStream 2 was only introduced in 2019, so for countless older CPUs you will find little or no benchmarks with JetStream 2.
> 
> You can see that I now score more than 30000 in Octane 2.0. I can easily compare this to how certain CPUs used to score in this benchmark: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11859/91866.png
> 
> For example I can learn that my old Intel i3-3240 in 2022 is almost as fast as an i7 6800K so many years ago, or faster than the i7 5930K so many years ago. Just looking at the browserbench.org benchmarks makes it harder for me to get these kinds of insights.


Good points! Far be it for me to tell anyone that just because something is older doesn't mean it's not useful! Using things as long as and if they're useful regardless of age is one of my technological mantras!


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 1, 2022)

Any thoughts on what browser benchmarks to use in future CPU reviews?

In the past I've used Octane, Kraken and WebXPRT

Leaning towards replacing Kraken with JetStream 2


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Leaning towards replacing Kraken with JetStream 2


Jetstream seems to test nearly everything a browser can do computationally, renders very detailed results and it includes the Octane runtimes so you could omit the Octane tests as well. Could be a good move if that is what you want out of the benchmark.

Question, have you looked at Speedometer as well? The tests it runs cover more user-action oriented tasks than raw computational data.


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Any thoughts on what browser benchmarks to use in future CPU reviews?
> 
> In the past I've used Octane, Kraken and WebXPRT
> 
> Leaning towards replacing Kraken with JetStream 2


The five most 'useful' browser benchmarks currently are probably:
1. Speedometer 2.0 ( For comparing browsers’ JavaScript performance, Apple’s Speedometer 2.0 benchmark is the most reflective of the real world, and most broadly used today.)
2. JetStream 2 (As far as I know this benchmark is more extensive than Speedometer 2.0)
3. Basemark Web 3.0 (Few or no other tools measure WebGL 2.0)
4. WebXPRT 3 (Its workloads reflect the types of web-based tasks that people are likely to encounter on a daily basis. I don't know if the fourth version is as reliable, some browsers get stuck in version 4)
5. MotionMark (Gives an idea of the graphics performance)

All five of these benchmarks are of great importance. Specifically for CPU performance, MotionMark and Basemark Web 3.0 are not very important.

Another thing to consider is the SilverBench as it is also very useful for testing CPUs.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 1, 2022)

New list

- Speedometer 2.0
- JetStream2
- WebXPRT (haven't looked into version 3 vs 4, but I'll be testing with a single Chrome version with updates disabled)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> (haven't looked into version 3 vs 4, but I'll be testing with a single Chrome version with updates disabled)


Don't forget Firefox. Lot's of us who actually read those benchmarks still use it.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 1, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Don't forget Firefox. Lot's of us who actually read those benchmarks still use it.


I can only test one browser. I use Firefox all day and hate Chrome. Chrome has the higher market share, so I'll use that

The CPU test suite is like 40 additional benchmarks, so gotta make compromises in terms of run time/complexity


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I can only test one browser. I use Firefox all day and hate Chrome. Chrome has the higher market share, so I'll use that
> 
> The CPU test suite is like 40 additional benchmarks, so gotta make compromises in terms of run time/complexity


Ah, good points.


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> - WebXPRT (haven't looked into version 3 vs 4, but I'll be testing with a single Chrome version with updates disabled)


The browsers I had issues with in WebXPRT 4 were Epiphany, Falkon, and Konqueror.

With Firefox, Chromium, Edge and Chrome you will not experience any problems in the latest version.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 1, 2022)

SchumannFrequency said:


> The browsers I had issues with in WebXPRT 4 were Epiphany, Falkon, and Konqueror.
> 
> With Firefox, Chromium, Edge and Chrome you will not experience any problems in the latest version.


Sorry for OT

Do you feel it's worth it (in the context of CPU reviews) to try to build some kind of test for "browser multitasking", like open 100 tabs, load html, wait for render to complete? Haven't really noticed any slowdowns in web browsing (as long as the sites are using somewhat well-behaving JS)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

SchumannFrequency said:


> With Firefox, Chromium, Edge and Chrome you will not experience any problems in the latest version.


I can confirm this on FireFox. I'm currently on the 91.xESR and just finished a run. It runs well and completes without issue(got a score of 94, is that good?!?). Also ran it in Iron(Chrome Fork)100 and it completes without complaint.


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Aug 1, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Sorry for OT
> 
> Do you feel it's worth it (in the context of CPU reviews) to try to build some kind of test for "browser multitasking", like open 100 tabs, load html, wait for render to complete? Haven't really noticed any slowdowns in web browsing (as long as the sites are using somewhat well-behaving JS)


This is my hardware and software:
Hardware: Intel i3-3240 + 4GB RAM @1600MHZ single channel + NVIDIA GTX 650 1GB + EVO 850 500GB
Software: FreeBSD + Chromium

When I open around 110 tabs with different types of standard websites my CPU keeps fluctuating between 1-4% usage according to 'top'. Every few seconds the CPU spikes to a maximum of 14% CPU usage and after this super short spike it goes right back to +- 2% CPU usage. I can open about 150 tabs from the wallhaven site before it becomes unstable, and that's because I'm out of RAM.. Loading of websites is also relatively fast, even with the heavier websites. I can't speak for windows but Linux and BSD systems aren't going to have any problems with _multitasking/many tabs/load html/rendering_ unless they have other apps open that take a lot of CPU. But for just browsing you're not going to have any problems on modern CPUs even if you use heavier websites.



lexluthermiester said:


> I can confirm this on FireFox. I'm currently on the 91.xESR and just finished a run. It runs well and completes without issue(got a score of 94, is that good?!?).


Which CPU do you use?

You should always look at your result in perspective of your hardware. I get a result of *112* in FreeBSD in Firefox on the i3-3240. In Clear Linux I get a result of *111* in the same browser on the same hardware.

I also have a Thinkcentre-M75 with Ryzen 5 Pro 3400G and it gets *130* on windows11 with Edge. On the same hardware but with Clear Linux and with Firefox it gets *135*.

Those are my results for WebXPRT 4, the older version (WebXPRT 3) gives higher results.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 1, 2022)

SchumannFrequency said:


> You should always look at your result in perspective of your hardware. I get a result of *112* in FreeBSD in Firefox on the i3-3240.


Xeon E5-2667 V2. I was doing a lot of other things while running the tests, which IMHO gives a more realistic score. 


SchumannFrequency said:


> I also have a Thinkcentre-M75 with Ryzen 5 Pro 3400G and it gets *130* on windows11 with Edge.


Also on Windows.


----------



## I hit the lottery (Aug 27, 2022)

12600k  on chrome i just installed...cuz I think its trash....and ofcourse it runs best on chrome, they designed it....reeeeeee


----------



## Det0x (Aug 27, 2022)

One of my older benches from 16.04.2021:


Speedometer 2.0 = *211*
Octane 2.0= *77030*
Mozilla Kraken 1.1= *521ms*
INTELedtechnologies.com WebXPRT 3 = *336*
Know i can get higher scores with a newer updated browser




*edit*
Other screen from 15.06.2021

*Chrome version 91.0.4472.106*







*edit2*
*07.12.2021*




*Chrome version 104.0.5112.102*

5950x


----------



## I hit the lottery (Aug 28, 2022)

Chrome stock,. firefox does like 220.


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Sep 6, 2022)

I only have a 10 year old dual core CPU and also slow single channel RAM, so this is pretty OK.

I think that with the R9 7950X in combination with high clocked dual channel RAM I would get over 100 000 in Octane 2.0 and over 400 in Speedometer 2.0


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 7, 2022)

Athlonite said:


> Vivaldi2.8.1664.36 (Stable channel) (64-bit)
> 
> 
> View attachment 132636



Vivaldi5.4.2753.47 (Stable channel) (64-bit) 




Seems Vivaldi has made a lot of improvements


----------

