Script Benchmark: Write a Million Numbers

cookiescookies
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Here's a fairly recent (orig Nov 2002) browser speed test. (Since it is an optimized test, it is not necessarily a pure benchmark of JavaScript speed.)



In the classical fashion of a JavaScript test, it writes one million numbers, which actually helps test not only the script execution speed (which is a value displayed in milliseconds), but also the browser display speed and computer rendering time (the difference between the displayed value and the actual physical time before the entire list of one million numbers is visible).



For comparison, a current Windows computer (2.4 GHz) can finish the test in 5.032 seconds (IE 6.0).



http://www.myersdaily.org/joseph/jav...n-numbers.html



As this test may consume one minute of time on some computers, caution is advised before clicking on the link.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 55
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    13464 for the latest nightly build of Camino. Hmmmmm.



    Does this test the browser, or Javascript?
  • Reply 2 of 55
    pc-to-macpc-to-mac Posts: 59member
    3016 - IE6/Windows XP Pro/2.8ghzP4/384mb RAM



    Seems kinda fast compared to the other findings.
  • Reply 3 of 55
    tommybrandotommybrando Posts: 118member
    11818



    Dual 867 G4 / 1 gig RAM / OS 10.2.6 / Safari 1.0 v85
  • Reply 4 of 55
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    21975 in OW4.5 on a 450MHz G4 with 1.5GB RAM, with Finder, Mail, OW, Safari (which is just a hair slower at this) and iTunes running. I didn't restart, either.
  • Reply 5 of 55
    mark_wilkinsmark_wilkins Posts: 154member
    7673 in Mozilla 1.2 on a 2.8 GHz Xeon (dual) running Red Hat 7.2.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 6 of 55
    fluffyfluffy Posts: 361member
    Dual 800, 768MB RAM, 10.2.6:



    Camino: 9820

    Safari: 12711

    OW4.5: 12759

    IE: 63344



    Just what I expected. I would expect a dual 1.25 or 1.42 to post ~5000 in Camino. Verification?
  • Reply 7 of 55
    mac-gyvermac-gyver Posts: 8member
    Using a 800MHz iMac w/ 512MB RAM & OSX 10.2.6...



    Netscape 7.0 - 29,774

    I.E. 5.2 83,000+

    Safari - 14,237
  • Reply 8 of 55
    dvd_junkiedvd_junkie Posts: 113member
    FWIW: Dual 1.25 G4 --> Safari 8219 (8353 with CPU monitor running)

    --> Netscape 7.1 8551 (with CPU monitor running)



    Looking at the CPU monitor while running this test seemed like there wasn't much threading of the task as only one CPU was dominant at anyone time during the run with Netscape 7.1. The situation was different with Safari as both CPU's were sharing the load thereby explaining the lower times.
  • Reply 9 of 55
    fluffyfluffy Posts: 361member
    DVD_Junkie, what do you get under Camino, if you don't mind my asking? It was at least 25% faster on my machine than Safari.
  • Reply 10 of 55
    mark_wilkinsmark_wilkins Posts: 154member
    (More numbers)



    12822 on a Mac Powerbook 800 (DVI) w/ 1 GB RAM running Safari 1.0 and OS 10.2.6



    2359 on a P4/3.2 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, running Windows XP Pro and IE 6.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 11 of 55
    dvd_junkiedvd_junkie Posts: 113member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fluffy

    DVD_Junkie, what do you get under Camino, if you don't mind my asking? It was at least 25% faster on my machine than Safari.



    Interesting question.



    with IE 5.2 I get 43565

    with Camino 0.7 : 6827 hmmmm
  • Reply 12 of 55
    carson o'geniccarson o'genic Posts: 1,279member
    On a 266MHz G3 Beige box running iCab 2.9.5 on OS9.2.1 I ran out of patience after several minutes of being warned of an infinite loop running, so I stopped the test and iCab crashed. So, top that you speed demons!
  • Reply 13 of 55
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    6468 on a [email protected] with Safari v85.5
  • Reply 14 of 55
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    8272 on PIII 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, Win2k, IE 6.
  • Reply 15 of 55
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Powerbook 12", 867 MHz, 640 MB, 10.2.6:



    Camino 0.7: 14079

    Safari 1.0(v85): 13669
  • Reply 16 of 55
    t'hain esh kelcht'hain esh kelch Posts: 1,274member
    Well... We can see that javascript still needs some optimizations in Safari...



    G4 400 Sawtooth, 512 mb ram, OSX 10.2.6, Safari 1.0. 5-10% CPU being used by other programs:



    27771
  • Reply 17 of 55
    angryangelangryangel Posts: 27member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jeromba

    6468 on a [email protected] with Safari v85.5



    Interesting that this is faster than the DP 1.25GHz with Safari 1.0- it scored 7950.
  • Reply 18 of 55
    spikespike Posts: 20member
    iBook 800 640 MB RAM OS 10.2.6

    13786 on Safari

    98324 on IE 5.2



    Athlon XP 2800+ 512 MB RAM Win XP

    2383 on IE 6.0



    The ancient pc I use at work...

    Pentium 2 400 128 MB RAM Win 2K

    16603 on IE 5.0
  • Reply 19 of 55
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AngryAngel

    Interesting that this is faster than the DP 1.25GHz with Safari 1.0- it scored 7950.



    Why? Safari uses only one processor, the G5 has better FPU (actually, double FPU), and the results seem to scale almost linearly with the processor frequency.
  • Reply 20 of 55
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    5798

    Win XP -- IE 6

    P4 1.6 (256mb)
Sign In or Register to comment.