Share your Speedometer 2.0 benchmark here

[M@VERICK]

an I5 8400h beats a 13900K

its a laptop too

 

[lolek86]

ryzen 7600 6000 tuned memory

 

[kapqa]

xeon x5675 (x2) + 8gb 1066 ddr3 on MacOS 12.7

higher value pertains to chromium, lower to firefox-esr.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

xeon x5675 (x2) + 8gb 1066 ddr3 on MacOS 12.7

higher value pertains to chromium, lower to firefox-esr.

Why do you use the Firefox ESR version on macOS? The newer versions have higher performance.
Linux systems are very slow in this particular test if you're using Chromium.
FreeBSD was also slow in this test a year ago with Chromium but little by little it has become faster and faster.

The i3-3240 in single core is about 19% faster than the xeon x5675 in the benchmark I saw, so we can conclude that macOS and FreeBSD are equally fast in this test.
I will update my post in a few minutes with a result from siduction (Debian sid) so you can see how fast Linux is in this particular test when using Chromium.
To be clear, I can install Brave on FreeBSD and score a result of +- 116 in this test. Chromium is simply not the fastest browser for this specific test.

The only difference between the two test results above is the operating system.
The hardware, Intel microcode, Nvidia proprietary driver and Chromium versions are exactly the same.
It is Chromium 117.0.5938.62
It is not in all tests that I see big differences between operating systems with Chromium.

 

[kapqa]

i always try use firefox-esr, since got the best experience with it; but have to admit, firefox is generally slower, than other browsers, but the functionality of the extensions is it that keep me using; that one ubuntu new snap version is faster than firefox-esr too, but if downloading, always go with esr, also i dont like sudden changes that happen often with newer version (like the new layout for thunderbird 115+)

the brave browser used only sparingly on android, but it seems really quite fast on this benchmark even on macos with a 13 year old cpu.

the newer mac cpu m2 seems to generate over 430 in this test, however, which seems another league.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

but have to admit, firefox is generally slower, than other browsers

I don't know if that's really true.
Speedometer is an Apple benchmark. Many of the "popular" benchmarks are developed by Apple, Microsoft or Google.
These benchmarks are not independent and thus, despite being popular, are +- 75% meaningless.

Some benchmarks where Firefox is faster than Chromium on FreeBSD I will mention here.

PT - WebXPRT

WebXPRT is a browser benchmark that compares the performance of almost any web-enabled device.

www.principledtechnologies.com

Dromaeo: Mozilla JavaScript performance test suite.

Visiting the main Dromaeo page you are given a collection of tests which can be run.

dromaeo.com

Performance testing: setting image src attributes dynamically

Speed test: innerHTML versus DOM manipulation

RoboHornet Pro

RoboHornet Pro Benchmark

testdrive-archive.azurewebsites.net

StyleBench 0.3

DOM Core Performance: Appending, Prepending, Inserting, Indexing, Removing

https://takahirox.github.io/WebAssembly-benchmark/tests/imageConvolute.html

JSBench.me - JavaScript performance benchmarking playground

JSBench.me is a JavaScript performance benchmarking playground based on Benchmark.js and influenced by JSPerf.

jsbench.me

https://bwasti.github.io/wasmblr/

WasmBoy Benchmarking

wasmboy.app

Chalkboard HTML5 Benchmark

HTML5 and SVG Performance Benchmark

testdrive-archive.azurewebsites.net

In the Chalkboard benchmark above, I see that Firefox is much faster than Chrome on systems that are very weak.
Think 8 year old mobile Celeron processors with integrated graphics for example.

JSBEN.CH Performance Benchmarking Playground for JavaScript

Online JavaScript benchmark tool / playground. Find the best performance and speed up your code!

jsben.ch

JSBEN.CH Performance Benchmarking Playground for JavaScript

Online JavaScript benchmark tool / playground. Find the best performance and speed up your code!

jsben.ch

You see the above website has something like >40 different tests.
In my experience, Firefox is faster than Chrome in 90% of these tests.

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/11opgpk

8 browsers in a tiny car: Energy Efficiency benchmark

I’ve recently been on a crusade to test power efficiency of most popular browsers, so you don’t have to. Chrome, Arc, Edge, Safari…

medium.com

What are the best Android web browsers to use in 2021? - Greenspector

For this 2021 edition, we have chosen to measure 15 mobile web browsing applications in order to compare them in relation to their carbon impact and energy - resource consumption.

greenspector.com

but have to admit, firefox is generally slower, than other browsers

Firefox Finally Outperforming Google Chrome In SunSpider - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

 

[kapqa]

well, i could not agree with that, to me chromium seems alot faster, om rendering webpages, but maybe just my impression;
+ then i have quite some extensions, and again using firefox-esr;
but since i use firefox 98&% of the time, maybe i have a biased opinion.

 

[valyamd]

fg

 

[SchumannFrequency]

well, i could not agree with that, to me chromium seems alot faster, om rendering webpages, but maybe just my impression;
+ then i have quite some extensions, and again using firefox-esr;
but since i use firefox 98&% of the time, maybe i have a biased opinion.

I had given a link in my previous post to someone who measured real world performance exactly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/11opgpk

Here is an article explaining why benchmarks from Microsoft, Apple and Google cannot be trusted.

The truth about traditional JavaScript benchmarks · Benedikt Meurer

Personal website of Benedikt Meurer, JavaScript Engine Hacker and Programming Language Enthusiast.

benediktmeurer.de

I hope it should be clear by now why benchmarks are generally a good idea, but are only useful to a certain level, and once you cross the line of useful competition, you'll start wasting the time of your engineers or even start hurting your real world performance! If we are serious about performance for the web, we need to start judging browser by real world performance and not their ability to game four year old benchmarks.

That said, there are several factors that impact browser performance:
1. How many extensions are you using and what extensions.
2. Which operating system are you using.
3. Which hardware are you using.
4. Which version of browser are you using.
5. Which specific websites do you visit most often.

I did a test yesterday Firefox vs Chrome where I compare the exact load times of 25 websites. Firefox was faster than Chrome in 17 of the websites.
I used Clear Linux for this test and what I also discovered is that Firefox is (a lot) faster on Clear Linux than the bulk of other operating systems currently in existence.

 

[disadadi]

366 with tons of tabs and background applications open. Chrome on i5-13600kf.

460 on iPhone 15 Pro Max & Safari, though.

 

[Doffy]

I really don't know whats about but i like it

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Chromium 117.0.5938.62 + FreeBSD 13.2 + Intel i3-3240 + 8GB DDR3

Chromium on FreeBSD is much faster than on Linux in this particular test and on this old hardware.
It is still not as fast as Brave, Vivaldi and Chrome in Speedometer but the performance difference is only 16%
In different browser benchmarks Chromium can be a bit faster than Brave, Vivaldi and Chrome.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

366 with tons of tabs and background applications open. Chrome on i5-13600kf.
View attachment 315292

For web browsing, the 13600KF seems to be only narrowly faster than the 12600KF.

Software: Archcraft -- Vivaldi 6.2.3105.58 (Stable channel) -- bspwm -- Nvidia proprietary GPU driver
Hardware: Intel 12600KF -- Kingston dual-channel 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB

Oct 20th, 2022

 

[masterdeejay]

Asus Rog notebook. I7 4720QM, 16Gb ram, GTX960M

 

[Doffy]

Eu realmente não sei do que se trata, mas eu gosto

Oh, its like a test of CPU? i don't get it?
But my specs are:
CPU: Intel Core I5-11300H Base clock 3,10 GHZ, 4,40 GHZ in hard tasks and 4,00 overheated
16 GB of ram Sodimm, 2 channels. DDR4 3200MHZ each
and a RTX 3050 TI.
The bus of the entire laptop is 128 bits (i dunno if make any difference)

 

[disadadi]

For web browsing, the 13600KF seems to be only narrowly faster than the 12600KF.
View attachment 316817

Software: Archcraft -- Vivaldi 6.2.3105.58 (Stable channel) -- bspwm -- Nvidia proprietary GPU driver
Hardware: Intel 12600KF -- Kingston dual-channel 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB

Oct 20th, 2022

I have DDR4 and no OC on the CPU. But yeah, could very well be that it's not a significant upgrade.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

I have DDR4 and no OC on the CPU. But yeah, could very well be that it's not a significant upgrade.

In terms of multi-core performance, your CPU is 34.5% faster. But in terms of single-core performance, your CPU is only 2.4% faster.
Since your RAM is probably slightly slower I suspect we're going to have about exactly the same single-core performance. I think single-core is mainly what determines speedometer's result.

 

[plat]

Brave browser in Sandboxie Plus. Cpu is i9 9900. Windows 10 latest.

Spoiler

Firefox is considerably less--@ 174.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Software: ALT Sisyphus -- LXQt -- Chrome (beta version) -- proprietary Nvidia driver
Hardware: Intel 12600KF (stock) -- Kingston 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB

 

[mika2k1]

Mac mini M1 16gb ram
MacOS 14.1 Sonoma
Google Chrome Canary themed [ARM]

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Mac mini M1 16gb ram
MacOS 14.1 Sonoma
Google Chrome Canary themed [ARM]

Perhaps it might be useful if you mention what result you get in version 2.0
You use speedometer 2.1 which gets slightly higher results than the version 2.0 that most people used in their test.

 

[mika2k1]

Perhaps it might be useful if you mention what result you get in version 2.0
You use speedometer 2.1 which gets slightly higher results than the version 2.0 that most people used in their test.

You're right. It is lower. v2.0 = 324

Perhaps it might be useful if you mention what result you get in version 2.0
You use speedometer 2.1 which gets slightly higher results than the version 2.0 that most people used in their test.

Apple's Safari browser gets 315 on speedometer v2.0

 

[SchumannFrequency]

You're right. It is lower.

The difference in our scores in version 2.1 is fairly noticeably less than the difference in version 2.0

This is the result for version 2.1 on the first attempt. I could score a little higher anyway if I made a few more attempts.

 

[ShiBDiB]

This benchmark seems like it's completely useless to be taken seriously. Way too many variables to consider.

http://imgur.com/NxgQEgM

 

[jiajo]