Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 8th Sep 2006 04:10 UTC
Benchmarks "Oh sure, the following tests aren't as scientific as putting all the browsers in a ring and seeing which one is left standing after the fight, but it's close." More here.
Permalink for comment 160693
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
1.74 seconds
by Bnonn on Sat 9th Sep 2006 03:01 UTC
Member since:

Presuming that the tests this fellow ran were not limited by bandwidth (ie, he ran them on a locally cached copy of the rendering page), I decided to run the same test here on Firefox. I have Ubuntu Edgy installed, with the latest updates, so I'm running Firefox 2.0b1. I have an Athlon64 3200+ with 512 MB RAM (32 MB shared with the onboard video), so it's quite a bit slower than this guy's test rig, however the same test took me only 1.74 seconds to render (averaged over five tests).

There wasn't any apparent difference in rendering time between opening the file and between refreshing it once open. It's probably also worth noting that I did not bother "cleaning up" my environment before running these tests; I still have Rhythmbox playing in the background, with Liferea, Evolution, XChat-Gnome, Nautilus, and Gnome-Terminal open also.

This either proves one of two things:

1. The test this guy performed is useless as a general benchmark because rendering speed is highly dependent on something specific and quite variable between systems.

2. Firefox 2.01b is a LOT faster than Firefox 1.5x.

Or 3, I suppose: a bit of both.


Reply Score: 1