Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 56.0: 30 November [Free, open and private web browser.]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 56.0: 30 November [Free, open and private web browser.] - Page 462

post #4611 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderStruck-1 View Post

H
I have been running the browsers through there paces tonite I have seen a few requests for benchmarking between the different browsers

That's quite a surprise, I'd have bet Waterfox is fastest because of the Intel compiler - and in your benchmarks it's last (I wouldn't count in palemoon, it's based on an older ff version). However, I just ran browsermark and have to confirm it - Waterfox is slowest, even though a 5% difference cannot be felt in real life browsing.

Waterfox 3227 (100%)
Nightly 3341 (3.5% faster)
Cyberfox 3388 (5% faster)

Conclusion: This post has been written with Cyberfox :-p but I really would like to see my Waterfox catch up again in the next version!
post #4612 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsu24 View Post

That's quite a surprise, I'd have bet Waterfox is fastest because of the Intel compiler - and in your benchmarks it's last (I wouldn't count in palemoon, it's based on an older ff version). However, I just ran browsermark and have to confirm it - Waterfox is slowest, even though a 5% difference cannot be felt in real life browsing.

Waterfox 3227 (100%)
Nightly 3341 (3.5% faster)
Cyberfox 3388 (5% faster)

Conclusion: This post has been written with Cyberfox :-p but I really would like to see my Waterfox catch up again in the next version!

Hi Marsu24 yes pale moon is based off an older version of firefox 15 with all the updates and patches of the newer versions but some of the people that were asking for benchmarks were also mentioning that browser so I included it in the testing for those that asked.

Although Cyberfox also uses the intel c++ compiler in it's build as well. I have spoken to that developer about his techniques for his compiles.
Edited by ThunderStruck-1 - 1/22/13 at 10:45am
post #4613 of 7367
Links need to be fixed.
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
Reply
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4614 of 7367
Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?
And please check settings build.
post #4615 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullmoon View Post

Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?
And please check settings build.

You will get the same results I have both AMD and Intel machines I used one of my Intel rigs to run the benchmark tests to start with, I got almost the same results as the tests with the AMD rig just scores were slightly lower for all the browsers, in the same order speed wise though as with the Intel machine the graphics card in that rig is not as powerful as the one in my AMD rig. I just happened to use the AMD rig last for testing so I took the screens with that machine.

Had the same issues on both intel and AMD having waterfox crash out but in the end was able to get them to run full tests, settings were checked as I tried to solve the issue of the crashing for quite a while before trying to run the benchmarks but was unable to find the cause.
post #4616 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullmoon View Post

Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?

Sure, I'd have noted otherwise (but afaik the newer Intel compilers aren't as crappy as in Pentium4/Netburst times on AMD). I've got a 2.13Ghz Core i3 (dual core with ht, Clarkdale generation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderStruck-1 View Post

Although Cyberfox also uses the intel c++ compiler in it's build as well. I have spoken to that developer about his techniques for his compiles.

Now I'm confused - the Cyberfox site also says something about Intel, but when I asked here it was stated that Cyberfox is compiled using MS compilers ... was that just FUD?
post #4617 of 7367
The download link is broken, can you post the URL
Ole Faithful
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 830 CM1630 AMD Radeon HD 6750 Series Nanya Technology  
RAMRAMOptical DriveOS
Nanya Technology  Nanya Technology  CD/DVD Burner Windows 7 x64 Home Premium 
MonitorPowerAudio
48 " Sony 1080p Flatscreen TV Thermaltake 650 Watts Rolanf MA-8 Stereo Micro Monitor 
  hide details  
Reply
Ole Faithful
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 830 CM1630 AMD Radeon HD 6750 Series Nanya Technology  
RAMRAMOptical DriveOS
Nanya Technology  Nanya Technology  CD/DVD Burner Windows 7 x64 Home Premium 
MonitorPowerAudio
48 " Sony 1080p Flatscreen TV Thermaltake 650 Watts Rolanf MA-8 Stereo Micro Monitor 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4618 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsu24 View Post

Sure, I'd have noted otherwise (but afaik the newer Intel compilers aren't as crappy as in Pentium4/Netburst times on AMD). I've got a 2.13Ghz Core i3 (dual core with ht, Clarkdale generation).
Now I'm confused - the Cyberfox site also says something about Intel, but when I asked here it was stated that Cyberfox is compiled using MS compilers ... was that just FUD?

I would guess so never saw other posts on the forum here as to how Cyberfox was compiled on here but from the start the only difference between the way Waterfox and Cyberfox were compiled was that Alex was using mvsc 2009 and the intel C ++ compiler until version 18 here where he switched to mvsc 2012. The Cyberfox guy was always using mvsc 2012 and the C++ compiler.

16 & 17 had good results with the intel C++ optimizing Compiler, as for 18 seems to be a bit of a dud build. Nightly 19 showed better results though and your getting back to normal with 20's code just like 16 & 17. It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.
post #4619 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderStruck-1 View Post

It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.

Well, I just ran the sunspider benchmark and the performance drop of Waterfox doesn't seem to be related to js ... but this is not a very in-depth test, I don't have the time or energy to run a couple of benchmarks multiple times taking the average.

Waterfox 18: 355ms (100%)
Nightly 21: 402ms (12% slower)
Cyberfox 18: 350ms (1% faster ~100%)
Edited by Marsu24 - 1/22/13 at 3:34pm
post #4620 of 7367
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallAMedic4U View Post

The download link is broken, can you post the URL

... of Waterfox? http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 56.0: 30 November [Free, open and private web browser.]