Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Hello all,

Keep exactly the same hardware and distribution for the testings.

My results so far :
PALEMOON is slow.
FIREFOX is fast.
SEAMONKEY is slow.
OPERA is fast.
CHROME is extremly fast .
VIVALDI is slow.
CHROMIUM is fast .
BASILISK is slow.

Thank you for doing testings too

Thanks, mimine, for doing the testing. If you get a chance, maybe see how well Seamonkey does. I've previously tested Seamonkey against other web-browsers; but my focus was on resource usage rather than speed.

Thanks mimine.

You don't specify what units the scores represent, if any, and if a high or low score is better.

Thanks
wizard

+1

What do these scores actually indicate?

I just did the Basemark test on my computer using Pale Moon v31.4.1
I got a score of 843
This test seems to be testing my hardware and not the browser.

Are both browsers setup exactly the same in their preferences settings?

Hello guys and girls,

Yes the scores depend on your hardware ! Of course, it's logical.
The higher the score, the fastest.
That's why I am asking to do the testing on the EXACTLY same hardware and same distribution and with browsers default settings.
We are here to compare browsers , and not hardware.

i to have done some testing - brave look likes its the fastest here - im running brave viewtopic.php?t=6150 on impish/imppup viewtopic.php?t=4138 on lenovo ideapad gaming 3

https://start.me/p/ekaokP/test

@mimine :-

I can't help noticing that you're using a bunch of extremely out-of-date browsers for your tests. That's not exactly a fair representation, given that most browser's performance will improve over time.

Also, I notice that you're comparing up-to-date Pale Moon & Firefox with Chrome 70. Given that we're now up to Chrome 108, and there's on average 4-5 release builds on each major release number, you're comparing brand-new Firefox/Pale Moon with a version of Chrome that's over 160 releases behind.

Not exactly a valid comparison, because Google and the Chromium Project have done an awful lot of work on their browser to cut down page load times, throttle back memory usage, and generally speed things up.

Just wanted to bring this to yours and everyone else's attention.

Mike.

tests of this nature are always meaningless to many users.The tests were done on "other" machines and only give an indication and not a positive result.
Best way to test browsers is to install them on your machine and run them.

...........

mimine wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 12:40 pm

mikewalsh wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:48 am

@mimine :-

I can't help noticing that you're using a bunch of extremely out-of-date browsers for your tests. That's not exactly a fair representation, given that most browser's performance will improve over time.

Also, I notice that you're comparing up-to-date Pale Moon & Firefox with Chrome 70. Given that we're now up to Chrome 108, and there's on average 4-5 release builds on each major release number, you're comparing brand-new Firefox/Pale Moon with a version of Chrome that's over 160 releases behind.

Not exactly a valid comparison, because Google and the Chromium Project have done an awful lot of work on their browser to cut down page load times, throttle back memory usage, and generally speed things up.

Just wanted to bring this to yours and everyone else's attention.

Mike.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS PRECISE OR EXACT !!!

I JUST TESTING MANY BROWSERS VERSIONS AND TRY TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES !!!

I AM TESTING FIRST THE DEFAULT BROWERS IN BIONICPUP !!!

CRITICIZING IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EASY !!!!

WHY DONT YOU DO THE TESTINGS TOO ??

FED UP !!!!!!

Say, best tone it down, your "fed up" doesn't give you permission to "go postal" on a fellow forum member.

As for your "tests", I've long considered all such tests as pure, unaldulterated bullshit! Conducted for marketing purposes only,
no "real world" value.
Wiz

Wiz57 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 1:12 pm

mimine wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 12:40 pm

mikewalsh wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:48 am

@mimine :-

I can't help noticing that you're using a bunch of extremely out-of-date browsers for your tests. That's not exactly a fair representation, given that most browser's performance will improve over time.

Also, I notice that you're comparing up-to-date Pale Moon & Firefox with Chrome 70. Given that we're now up to Chrome 108, and there's on average 4-5 release builds on each major release number, you're comparing brand-new Firefox/Pale Moon with a version of Chrome that's over 160 releases behind.

Not exactly a valid comparison, because Google and the Chromium Project have done an awful lot of work on their browser to cut down page load times, throttle back memory usage, and generally speed things up.

Just wanted to bring this to yours and everyone else's attention.

Mike.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS PRECISE OR EXACT !!!

I JUST TESTING MANY BROWSERS VERSIONS AND TRY TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES !!!

I AM TESTING FIRST THE DEFAULT BROWERS IN BIONICPUP !!!

CRITICIZING IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EASY !!!!

WHY DONT YOU DO THE TESTINGS TOO ??

FED UP !!!!!!

Say, best tone it down, your "fed up" doesn't give you permission to "go postal" on a fellow forum member.

As for your "tests", I've long considered all such tests as pure, unaldulterated bullshit! Conducted for marketing purposes only,
no "real world" value.
Wiz

OK I DRANK TOO MUCH COFFEE.

PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES.

Marketing by testing different benchmarks and official tools ? LOL
I opened many bug reports for Mozilla Firefox thanks to these "marketing" benchmarks !
And they solved them and improved the software thanks to this "marketing" testings.
Now you are free to thing what you want, but these benchmarks are quite helpful finding some bugs and for comparison.
Of course, it's not 100% precise .
It's not a 100% picture of the real life usages, but it's a small part of it.

@mimine :-

Um....actually, I don't NEED to test browsers for performance. I've been packaging the things for quite a few years, and by now have a very good understanding of what they're capable of.

Although your idea of testing them for performance is appreciated, I long ago came to the conclusion that all such tests are going to be highly subjective. It's perfectly possible for a recognized "slow browser" to seem fast & sprightly on sufficiently powerful hardware.....just as it is possible for an acknowledged "fast" browser to seem slow and clunky due to lack of resources.

The principle of 'testing' is fine (in theory). Certainly nothing wrong with it. In the real world, though, there are so many variables in play as to render such things effectively meaningless.

There's no reason why you can't keep an eye on such things on a personal basis. Published "results", however, will need to be taken with rather more than a 'pinch' of salt!

(You begin to realise this once you've been 'round the block' a number of times....)

Mike.

mikewalsh wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:49 pm

@mimine :-

Um....actually, I don't NEED to test browsers for performance. I've been packaging the things for quite a few years, and by now have a very good understanding of what they're capable of.

Although your idea of testing them for performance is appreciated, I long ago came to the conclusion that all such tests are going to be highly subjective. It's perfectly possible for a recognized "slow browser" to seem fast & sprightly on sufficiently powerful hardware.....just as it is possible for an acknowledged "fast" browser to seem slow and clunky due to lack of resources.

The principle of 'testing' is fine (in theory). Certainly nothing wrong with it. In the real world, though, there are so many variables in play as to render such things effectively meaningless.

There's no reason why you can't keep an eye on such things on a personal basis. Published "results", however, will need to be taken with rather more than a 'pinch' of salt!

(You begin to realise this once you've been 'round the block' a number of times....)

Mike.

no , it's not subjective at all.
some benchmarks here have their source code available and are reproducible and test very special parts of the browser.
and some are used by the browsers developers .

I been around the block too and wrote bug reports for browsers and many softwares lol. actually it's my professional job too anyway.

mikeslr wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:08 pm

Thanks, mimine, for doing the testing. If you get a chance, maybe see how well Seamonkey does. I've previously tested Seamonkey against other web-browsers; but my focus was on resource usage rather than speed.

Result : Seamonkey 2.49.4 64 bits is stable but slow on bionicpup64 .

There is a problem with FIREFOX 107.0.1 64 bit , it freeezes sometimes and randomly....
Need to kill and restart the program sometimes.

I noticed firefox is extremely slow in motionmark.
I investigated and it says it is slow in "canvas arc" and "canvas lines".
It needs more investigation, but it's difficult actually.
So I guess I gonna write a bug report like that.

mimine wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:31 am

https://web.basemark.com/
PALEMOON 31.4.1 ------ score 130
FIREFOX 107.0.1 ------ score 160
SEAMONKEY 2.49.4 ------ score 126
OPERA 58.0.3135.90 ------ score 83 (BAD caused hardware problems : radeon ring 0 stalled)
GOOGLE-CHROME 70.0.3538.77 ------ score 75 (BAD caused hardware problems : radeon ring 0 stalled)
VIVALDI 2.3.1440.61 ------ score 81 (BAD caused hardware problems : radeon ring 0 stalled)
CHROMIUM 73.0.3683.86 ------ score 93 (BAD caused hardware problems : radeon ring 0 stalled)
BASILISK 2018.09.05 ------ score 132

My basemark in PALEMOON (Fossa64 builtin) is 89.

houndstooth wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:02 am

My basemark in PALEMOON (Fossa64 builtin) is 89.

thanks, can you try it on firefox and google chrome or other browsers on the same distribution and same pc ?
Because only one browser result is not enough, you need to compare different browsers together.
So you will know if palemoon is slower or faster than firefox.
Anyway I already did the job for you, firefox is faster than palemoon and is at equal speed with google chrome or opera. See my first post.
thanks

On Android now I might have a look later. My bandwidth is variable but anecdotally having the best speed luck now in Brave (still usually in Pale Moon for its footprint).

mimine wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 6:28 am

thanks, can you try it on firefox and google chrome or other browsers on the same distribution and same pc ?
Because only one browser result is not enough, you need to compare different browsers together.
So you will know if palemoon is slower or faster than firefox.
Anyway I already did the job for you, firefox is faster than palemoon and is at equal speed with google chrome or opera. See my first post.
thanks

I downloaded the latest Seamonkey and ran the tests.
It is slower .
And it crashes the video card sometimes, it never did it before .

mikewalsh wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:48 am

@mimine :-

I can't help noticing that you're using a bunch of extremely out-of-date browsers for your tests. That's not exactly a fair representation, given that most browser's performance will improve over time.

Also, I notice that you're comparing up-to-date Pale Moon & Firefox with Chrome 70. Given that we're now up to Chrome 108, and there's on average 4-5 release builds on each major release number, you're comparing brand-new Firefox/Pale Moon with a version of Chrome that's over 160 releases behind.

Not exactly a valid comparison, because Google and the Chromium Project have done an awful lot of work on their browser to cut down page load times, throttle back memory usage, and generally speed things up.

Just wanted to bring this to yours and everyone else's attention.

Mike.

I just downloaded and installed the latest google chrome version 108.0.5359.98 .
And the results are : it is much faster than version 70.0.3538.77, and it is the fastest browser.
But sadly it makes my radeon video card crash in https://web.basemark.com/

I got bad news from the mozilla developers.
They say that firefox is slow on bionicpup because MESA doesnt fully accelerate old radeon cards.
It won't be solved until a long time. Good luck.

Gnimmelf wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:29 am

i to have done some testing - brave look likes its the fastest here - im running brave viewtopic.php?t=6150 on impish/imppup viewtopic.php?t=4138 on lenovo ideapad gaming 3

https://start.me/p/ekaokP/test

Google chrome viewtopic.php?t=146 from here is now the fastest on my system viewtopic.php?t=8264