Re: FF3.1beta3 in Peacekeeper performance test
Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:41:36 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mozilla.performance |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mike Cramer wrote: > "..Peacekeeper measures your browser's performance by testing its > JavaScript functionality. ..." That's not what it tests. > The following features are tested: > http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/faq.action Right. > As result they show this > http://www.heise.de/mobil/Neuer-Benchmark-fuer-Internetbrowser--/zoom/134567/0 Which is semi-meaningless, since they don't ever explain how they compute those numbers. > which means that FF 3.1b3 is only ~1/2 as fast as safari 4.0 No, it means their scoring function, which they never explain, assigned it half as high a score. What that means in practice depends on what that function is. If you can get them to tell you that, I'd love to know the results. > I tried this test on my mac pro (2,4ghz, 4gb) and I got the following > results: > Safari 3.2.1 791points > FF3.1beta3 592points Which means what? > Has anyone an explaination why FF3.1 performs so poor in this test It's pretty easy to write tests on which FF3.1 performs worse than Safari 4 (e.g. dromaeo). If you want me to explain numbers that are being computed by some hidden formula, I think you're out of luck. ;) For what it's worth, I spent a few hours on Friday trying to get this test suite into a shape where I could run one test at a time (and hence profile the tests to see where we spend time). I gave up when I couldn't even get any of the tests but the array tests from their web server: either they send different tests for the same URI based on cookies, or their code is cleverly obfuscated beyond my ability to comprehend. Or both. Given that they don't publish sub-scores for the parts of the benchmark, don't provide their benchmark's tests in a way that can be read (much less run individually), and don't explain how their final score is computed from the sub-scores, the credibility of these folks is about 0 for me right now. They could just be making all the numbers up using a random number generator; I have no way to tell. -Boris