Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Google Mozilla The Internet News

Mozilla Unleashes the Kraken 363

Posted by timothy
from the clashing-with-titans dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has released the first version a new browser benchmark called Kraken. Mozilla's Robert Sayre writes on his blog, 'More than Sunspider, V8, and Dromaeo, Kraken focuses on realistic workloads and forward-looking applications. We believe that the benchmarks used in Kraken are better in terms of reflecting realistic workloads for pushing the edge of browser performance forward. These are the things that people are saying are too slow to do with open web technologies today, and we want to have benchmarks that reflect progress against making these near-future apps universally available.' On my somewhat elderly x86_64 Linux system Google Chrome 6.0.472.55 beta completes the Kraken benchmark in 28638.1 milliseconds, Opera 10.62 completes it in 23612.4 milliseconds, and the current Firefox 4 nightly build completes it in 19897.5 milliseconds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Unleashes the Kraken

Comments Filter:
  • Obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Firehed (942385) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @05:16AM (#33584308) Homepage

    How about IE performance? Too bad to even mention?

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @05:46AM (#33584424)

    Why don't they just grab the (say) 200 most visited sites on the internet, copy the JavaScript and use that to benchmark instead?

    Simples.

  • Re:Obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by edgrale (216858) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @05:50AM (#33584450)

    It's still running.

    Laugh all you want but I have had it running on IE 8 (Windows 7 64 bit) for the past 5 minutes and it is still stuck at the first stage. So I think we have a legitimate reason why Internet Explorer was not included...

    Also got a warning that "A script on this page is causing your web browser to run slowly."...

  • by BZ (40346) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @06:02AM (#33584494)

    Because the amount of time it takes to run the javascript on the top sites is pretty small (which is what the IE team was talking about around IE8's release). Performance on those sites mostly doesn't depend on whether your JS engine is the one in Chrome dev or the one in IE7. I only say "mostly" because I wouldn't be surprised if gmail is in the top 200. ;)

    If you're going to worry specifically about JS performance (which is an assumption; the IE team is still saying that this focus is a mistake and to some extent they're right), you want to be benchmarking things that are gated on JS performance. That means identifying t the things that are slow with current JS engines and that people would like to be doing but can't because of said slowness, whatever those things are, and benchmarking those.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @06:27AM (#33584618)

    Try writing a web application in pure javascript. No, no HTML tags allowed. Not even a canvas. See how useful javascript is.

    We had an internal test, building a treeview with several thousand nodes, built in Javascript (the output of the serverside control was javascript that would build the tree, to avoid sending the HTML tags, of which there was a lot). Running it on Firefox 3.something, IE 8, Chrome 5 (or so), you'd expect Chrome to be the fastest, and IE to be the slowest. Turned out to be the other way around. IE was the fastest, building the treeview in around 2 seconds, Firefox took 9 seconds to build it, and Chrome was measured in minutes.

    When we split it up, we found out that, yes, Chrome was the fastest processing the Javascript. Displaying the result was what took all that time.

    You are right that javascript is necessary for most stuff on the web nowadays, but fast javascript does not make the browser fast if everything else is slow. Currently (3.x), everything is slow in Firefox. IE can do some things fast, others are just as slow as Firefox. Chrome is the overall fastest browser, winning on startup time and javascript performance.

    Making Firefox do javascript faster than Chrome doesn't help a lot, if Chrome has finished processing the javascript before Firefox starts up.

  • my results (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @07:28AM (#33584858)

    on a MBP c2d 2.4ghz with OSX 10.6.4

    firefox 4.0b6 Total: 13459.0ms +/- 0.2%
    opera 10.62 Total: 15670.1ms +/- 1.0%
    chrome 6.0.472.59 Total: 18582.1ms +/- 0.6%
    safari 5.0.1 Total: 17107.3ms +/- 0.1%
    firefox 3.6.9 Total: 23792.1ms +/- 0.4%

  • by hAckz0r (989977) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @07:45AM (#33584974)
    Mozilla Unleashes the Kraken https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kraken_botnet [wikimedia.org]. I just wonder if this is somehow a 'Freudian slip', just to remind the world of how vulnerable the competition is?
  • Re:Javascript (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:41AM (#33585376)

    Firefox's Javascript might be blazingly fast now, but the startup time on FF4 beta before it actually becomes responsive is more than 5 seconds for me even on a fast machine. It also hasn't fixed longstanding issues such as the lack of a working upload progress bar. I also find Firefox's popup blocking less and less effective since it allows popups through if the users clicks something so a number of sites are opening popups/popunders as the user navigates around them. In my opinion it needs an option to block all popups by default regardless of how they're triggered.

    It's also a lot less stable than FF3 but hopefully this is to be expected from beta code and will be improved for the final release.

  • Re:Javascript (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @08:52AM (#33585476)
    Yes, I have used JS on the server and I wouldn't use it for anything production in place of .Net - the frameworks and language features are just not there to be competitive yet.

    On the server side, fast is not enough. I don't want to be reimplementing functionality I know I can get elsewhere very very cheaply.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS

Working...