We are testing a new javascript from the new Google browser
One of the main innovations of Google’s new browser is the new javascript virtual machine called V8.
Naturally, Google did not forget to provide for public use a test suite for assessing the performance of browsers when running javascript.
Download the test package here: code.google.com/p/v8/downloads/list
')
Tests were conducted intentionally on an obsolete computer (it is on such machines that javascript performance is especially important). The computer is running windows XP SP2, has an Intel Celeron processor 1.70 GHz and 256 megabytes of RAM.
All tests were performed with the same load of RAM, all 4 tested browsers were loaded into the computer's memory, three of which, not participating in the testing, were minimized.
In the first place, Google Chrome was expected with a score of 432 points:
Score: 432
Richards: 710
DeltaBlue: 420
Crypto: 389
RayTrace: 250
EarleyBoyer: 519
However, during testing, the results of the new browser were quite different - from 471 points to 114 points. The browser shows higher results if you run several tests in a row without switching the active tab. The results are reduced if you go to the tab with the test from another tab. And very low will be the results when switching from another browser. Apparently the V8 is very dependent on the size and speed of the release of RAM.
Opera version 9.52 was in second place, scoring 68 points:
Score: 68
Richards: 45
DeltaBlue: 48
Crypto: 39
RayTrace: 88
EarleyBoyer: 186
Unlike Chrome, Opera’s figures were fairly stable - the results in the test series did not differ by more than 3 points and only once were 26 points.
In third place, Firefox version 3.0.1, he scored 39 points:
Score: 39
Richards: 56
DeltaBlue: 35
Crypto: 36
RayTrace: 23
EarleyBoyer: 56
And the maximum result shown by Firefox was 44 points. In general, the Mozilla browser performed quite stably and slowed down the least when switching the active window to it.
Well, Internet Explorer version 7 turned out to be an outsider. He consistently scored 7 points, as if justifying his serial number:
Score: 7
Richards: 7
DeltaBlue: 5
Crypto: 14
RayTrace: 5
EarleyBoyer: 9
During the test, IE warns of the danger of launching unknown scripts and asks specifically to allow them. Also in the middle of the test, he honestly warns that possibly running scripts will make him think for a long time and offers to immediately stop testing. Indeed, testing time in IE is the biggest.
Naturally in the process of testing, I used the opportunity to test the new browser from Google itself. It is in it that this note is prepared. According to the results we can say that the program justifies the status of the beta version. With a decrease in free memory, the browser noticeably slows down when scrolling through the site habrahabr.ru. When writing this note in the input window, there were some freezes when copying / deleting chunks of text. In addition, the spell checker in Russian is still working quite strangely. She highlighted in red about half of the words in this note, but missed some obvious typographical errors (which does not mean that this text is free from errors).
Naturally, Google did not forget to provide for public use a test suite for assessing the performance of browsers when running javascript.
Download the test package here: code.google.com/p/v8/downloads/list
')
Tests were conducted intentionally on an obsolete computer (it is on such machines that javascript performance is especially important). The computer is running windows XP SP2, has an Intel Celeron processor 1.70 GHz and 256 megabytes of RAM.
All tests were performed with the same load of RAM, all 4 tested browsers were loaded into the computer's memory, three of which, not participating in the testing, were minimized.
In the first place, Google Chrome was expected with a score of 432 points:
Score: 432
Richards: 710
DeltaBlue: 420
Crypto: 389
RayTrace: 250
EarleyBoyer: 519
However, during testing, the results of the new browser were quite different - from 471 points to 114 points. The browser shows higher results if you run several tests in a row without switching the active tab. The results are reduced if you go to the tab with the test from another tab. And very low will be the results when switching from another browser. Apparently the V8 is very dependent on the size and speed of the release of RAM.
Opera version 9.52 was in second place, scoring 68 points:
Score: 68
Richards: 45
DeltaBlue: 48
Crypto: 39
RayTrace: 88
EarleyBoyer: 186
Unlike Chrome, Opera’s figures were fairly stable - the results in the test series did not differ by more than 3 points and only once were 26 points.
In third place, Firefox version 3.0.1, he scored 39 points:
Score: 39
Richards: 56
DeltaBlue: 35
Crypto: 36
RayTrace: 23
EarleyBoyer: 56
And the maximum result shown by Firefox was 44 points. In general, the Mozilla browser performed quite stably and slowed down the least when switching the active window to it.
Well, Internet Explorer version 7 turned out to be an outsider. He consistently scored 7 points, as if justifying his serial number:
Score: 7
Richards: 7
DeltaBlue: 5
Crypto: 14
RayTrace: 5
EarleyBoyer: 9
During the test, IE warns of the danger of launching unknown scripts and asks specifically to allow them. Also in the middle of the test, he honestly warns that possibly running scripts will make him think for a long time and offers to immediately stop testing. Indeed, testing time in IE is the biggest.
Naturally in the process of testing, I used the opportunity to test the new browser from Google itself. It is in it that this note is prepared. According to the results we can say that the program justifies the status of the beta version. With a decrease in free memory, the browser noticeably slows down when scrolling through the site habrahabr.ru. When writing this note in the input window, there were some freezes when copying / deleting chunks of text. In addition, the spell checker in Russian is still working quite strangely. She highlighted in red about half of the words in this note, but missed some obvious typographical errors (which does not mean that this text is free from errors).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/38827/
All Articles