My interpretation of WebXPRT is that it is a more applicable (albeit more complex) indicator of web performance, and doesn't necessarily mean anything relative to the "snappy" feeling you get when loading simple web pages. Use WebXPRT to see exactly how well different devices handle real-world tasks." It contains HTML5, JavaScript, and WebAssembly-based scenarios created to mirror the tasks you do every day: Photo Enhancement, Organize Album Using AI, Stock Option Pricing, Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan using WASM, Sales Graphs, and Online Homework. Via : "WebXPRT 4 is a browser benchmark that compares the performance of almost any web-enabled device. The Pixel's results are relatively in line with how I've tangibly experienced the device's web performance. The iPad once again kills it, which is also not consistent with my "feeling" when it comes to browsing the web on that device. I don't think that in everyday use it feels much slower, and actually I think the "feeling" of speed is more pronounced going from Chromium to Thorium versus Firefox to Chromium. This basically shows the same results as before, with Firefox falling further behind that I'd expect. Basemark Web 3.0 measures real-world client-side performance to detect browser bottlenecks." After running the benchmark you will see how your system performed compared to other systems and browsers in Basemark Power Board. This benchmark includes various system and graphic tests that use the web recommendations and features. Via : "Basemark Web 3.0 is a comprehensive web browser performance benchmark that tests how well your mobile or desktop system can use web based applications. The Pixel surprisingly gained a lot of ground here on Chromium, & Thorium continues to show steady & consistent gains over Chromium. Once again, the iPad has a fantastic showing. For more information, read the in-depth analysis. It rewards browsers that start up quickly, execute code quickly, and run smoothly. Via : "JetStream 2.1 is a JavaScript and WebAssembly benchmark suite focused on the most advanced web applications. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret these results, but I guess Firefox's WebRender really uses the GPU well & Safari does even better. This is where we see Firefox take the lead for once on my desktop, but it is negated by my iPad, which somehow obliterates my desktop-class Radeon GPU. For accurate results, please take your browser window full screen, or rotate your device to landscape orientation." More details about the benchmark are available. Via : "MotionMark is a graphics benchmark that measures a browser’s capability to animate complex scenes at a target frame rate. It is important to note that the WebKit team produces this benchmark along with MotionMark & JetStream. My iPad follows in a closer second than anticipated considering its running a mobile chip, followed by my desktop's other browsers & finally the Pixel. Here we see Thorium pull ahead quite a bit, & it's a consistent theme that Thorium takes the lead when it comes to JavaScript stuff. It uses demo web applications to simulate user actions such as adding to-do items." Via : "Speedometer is a browser benchmark that measures the responsiveness of Web applications. Anyhow, let's get into the results: Speedometer 2.1 I didn't enable any flags for any of the browsers except one to enable JXL support on Firefox Nightly, so all were kept almost completely stock. I don't think that matters too much here, but I thought it may be important to note. Up: 4d 17h 40m Mem: 8923.9/31871.1 MiB (28.0%) Storage: 6.83 TiB (19.2% used)Īlthough I was on the previous kernel release when these tests were completed, a version of kernel 6.1. I currently use the Firefox Flatpak on my desktop & laptop, Firefox on my iPad (being WebKit based, I didn't feel it was useful to test it), & I just recently switched from Bromite to Firefox Nightly on my Pixel 7 for its JPEG-XL support & timely updates (where Bromite hasn't been updated since Chromium 108). I am a Firefox user right now, but that's always subject to change, although right now I'm not particularly partial to Chromium-based browsers. This isn't to disprove or undermine their browser benchmark results in any way, I simply wanted to do my own testing & report back my results as a means of letting myself know how my different browsers perform. I think Thorium's a really neat browser, & I commend their continued support for the fantastic JPEG-XL codec when most seem to have abandoned it. The web browser Thorium claims to improve upon Chromium's (and by extension, Chrome's) browser performance significantly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |