Question How fast is your browser?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Magic Carpet

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,477
231
106
This benchmark simulates user actions for adding, completing, and removing to-do items using multiple examples in TodoMVC. Each example in TodoMVC implements the same todo application using DOM APIs in different ways. Some call DOM APIs directly from ECMAScript 5 (ES5), ECMASCript 2015 (ES6), ES6 transpiled to ES5, and Elm transpiled to ES5. Others use one of eleven popular JavaScript frameworks: React, React with Redux, Ember.js, Backbone.js, AngularJS, (new) Angular, Vue.js, jQuery, Preact, Inferno, and Flight. Many of these frameworks are used on the most popular websites in the world, such as Facebook and Twitter. The performance of these types of operations depends on the speed of the DOM APIs, the JavaScript engine, CSS style resolution, layout, and other technologies.
Click to expand...

Core M-5Y10c @ 52.02

Images aren't necessary, but please state your cpu speed. The web browser of your choice. Mine is Edge 83. Thank you.

speed.pngspeed2.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPBHM
Sort by date Sort by votes
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,335
12,099
126
www.anyf.ca
Just did my home gaming machine. Got 25.4.
Browser: Pale Moon
CPU: core i7-3820 @ 3.6Ghz
GPU: GTX 1070 TI.

Home Linux machine did not do so well. Got 3.70. I was expecting way higher than that especially considering it's newer hardware.
Browser: Firefox
CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Quad-Core @ 1546.395Ghz (that's oddly specific lol)
GPU: [AMD/ATI] Ellesmere [Radeon RX 470/480/570/570X/580/580X/590] (rev e7) (I don't recall which one I think it's a 470)

I was watching Youtube videos and browsing and otherwise using the machine while the test was going on though, so maybe that has an effect. Going to let it go overnight while I go to bed to see if it changes anything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,252
3,483
136
Red Squirrel said:
Just did my home gaming machine. Got 25.4.
Browser: Pale Moon
CPU: core i7-3820 @ 3.6Ghz
GPU: GTX 1070 TI.

Home Linux machine did not do so well. Got 3.70. I was expecting way higher than that especially considering it's newer hardware.
Browser: Firefox
CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Quad-Core @ 1546.395Ghz (that's oddly specific lol)
GPU: [AMD/ATI] Ellesmere [Radeon RX 470/480/570/570X/580/580X/590] (rev e7) (I don't recall which one I think it's a 470)

I was watching Youtube videos and browsing and otherwise using the machine while the test was going on though, so maybe that has an effect. Going to let it go overnight while I go to bed to see if it changes anything.
Click to expand...


You must have something seriously wrong with its config. I got 66 on my Linux desktop with i5 and integrated CPU. I used Firefox, maybe Pale Moon's JS implementation is terrible (it forked off from Firefox so long time ago Mozilla has completely redone theirs since) so if you keep getting such awful numbers you might want to try it with Firefox just to check if it is your browser that is limiting you and not something in your Linux config.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,335
12,099
126
www.anyf.ca
Doug S said:
You must have something seriously wrong with its config. I got 66 on my Linux desktop with i5 and integrated CPU. I used Firefox, maybe Pale Moon's JS implementation is terrible (it forked off from Firefox so long time ago Mozilla has completely redone theirs since) so if you keep getting such awful numbers you might want to try it with Firefox just to check if it is your browser that is limiting you and not something in your Linux config.
Click to expand...

No idea why it's so slow or what config would be wrong. This is a fairly fresh install too. Kubuntu 19.04 with pretty much everything default. I only have a few extensions too, nothing crazy. ublock, privacy badger, facebook container and a duckduck go privacy app.


Edit: it seems using the PC at same time greatly influences the score. I left it on (The Ryzen one running Linux and Firefox) and left it do it's thing while I stepped away and I got 49.7.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

john3850

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2002
1,436
21
81
Makaveli said:
My scores didn't change much from version 84 to 85 except it went down 1 point in 85
Click to expand...
There was a Microsoft Edge chart with every edge version and the speedometer scores next to it but I can not find it again. I went from 150 to 167 with the same setting with it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Det0x

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,028
2,953
136
Pretty sure edge version 84 and 85 give you +-2 the same score.
Both are about ~10% faster then 83 in my testing.
Hence v83 150 points -> v85 165 points on my ryzen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
SPBHM said:
tested this on another PC an e5420 (2.5Ghz "Core 2 Quad" with a HD 5850)
XP sp3
firefox 59.2 15.3

10 1903 x64
edge 83 beta 40.1
firefox 76 35.1
old edge 25.8

it's kind of interesting that the score with my other 2.5GHz "C2Q" was 10% higher or so, there is a difference with the video card and software (1903 vs 1909, edge 83 vs 82, but also I have the meltdown fix disabled on the l5408 one which was faster) but the CPU should perform the same

in any case, XP was slow but still could run it at least, well firefox

they have a couple of light extensions which I don't think would affect things much (ublock origin, h264ify)
Click to expand...

so I decided to re run the test with extensions disabled on the e5420 machine,
still the same thing apart from edge being auto updated (2.5Ghz core 2 quad, HD 5850, windows 10 1903x64, XP SP3),

XP:
chrome 49 31.08
firefox 52.9 18.1
Seamonkey 2.49.5 16.7

10:
Firefox 76.0.1 39.8 (after running this it updated to 77 but the result was basically the same)
Edge Beta 84 49.53

a decent gain from disabling the extensions, and Chrome on XP is kind of a lot faster than FF (which you can notice while using it)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,335
12,099
126
www.anyf.ca
Weird I was curious to try it in safe mode on a separate profile, I ran firefox --ProfileManger --safe-mode and made a new profile. It ran very fast, less than a minute. But only got 21.9. Really not sure why I get low scores on all my systems.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
928
149
106
Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400 stock, 8800GT
Old Edge: 21.0 (ran it an extra time but still bad, 20.89)
Edge Chromium 83: 39.16
Firefox 77.0.1: 32.1 (31.4 without hw acceleration)
Chrome 83: 35.62
Opera 68: 35.57

I wonder if hw acceleration actually is doing anything useful in this test because disabling it on Chrome resulted in 36.72. And Chrome does say it's working when enabled, with "Out-of-process Rasterization" and "Rasterization" unavailable. Firefox just calls the Composition "Basic" and showing the various WebGL1 as supported.

Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400, Geforce 6200
Old Edge: 20.6
Edge Chromium: 38.80 (39.7 with hw disabled)
Chrome: 35.20 (36.39 with hw disabled)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
Spjut said:
Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400 stock, 8800GT
Old Edge: 21.0 (ran it an extra time but still bad, 20.89)
Edge Chromium 83: 39.16
Firefox 77.0.1: 32.1 (31.4 without hw acceleration)
Chrome 83: 35.62
Opera 68: 35.57

I wonder if hw acceleration actually is doing anything useful in this test because disabling it on Chrome resulted in 36.72. And Chrome does say it's working when enabled, with "Out-of-process Rasterization" and "Rasterization" unavailable. Firefox just calls the Composition "Basic" and showing the various WebGL1 as supported.

Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400, Geforce 6200
Old Edge: 20.6
Edge Chromium: 38.80 (39.7 with hw disabled)
Chrome: 35.20 (36.39 with hw disabled)
Click to expand...


interesting results comparing to mine from the e5420, both are C2Q one at 2.5 and the other at 2.66 but one with 2x2MB l2 and the other 2x6MB l2, seems like the cache is benefiting this to a significant level.

but I have a question, do you notice much of a difference between the 6200 and the 8800GT in terms of the windows 10 UI performance, and the CPU load from "desktop window manager"?
because on Intel IGPs I notice a big difference from the older WDDM 1 GMA 3100 and the newer WDDM1.1 HD4500 UI performance and CPU usage, but I haven't had the chance to use an Nvidia card with WDDM 1 driver like the 6200 recently, so kind of curious about it, but this benchmark doesn't seem to affected by it at least
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
928
149
106
SPBHM said:
interesting results comparing to mine from the e5420, both are C2Q one at 2.5 and the other at 2.66 but one with 2x2MB l2 and the other 2x6MB l2, seems like the cache is benefiting this to a significant level.

but I have a question, do you notice much of a difference between the 6200 and the 8800GT in terms of the windows 10 UI performance, and the CPU load from "desktop window manager"?
because on Intel IGPs I notice a big difference from the older WDDM 1 GMA 3100 and the newer WDDM1.1 HD4500 UI performance and CPU usage, but I haven't had the chance to use an Nvidia card with WDDM 1 driver like the 6200 recently, so kind of curious about it, but this benchmark doesn't seem to affected by it at least
Click to expand...

I can't say I noticed any difference that's not placebo when just using the 8800GT for basic tasks like browsing. I have removed the 8800GT now because I sold it, but figured I could as well try this benchmark before doing so.

For the 6200, "Desktop window manager" seems to average around 2% when I just move the cursor around on the desktop, going to bbc.com and scrolling up and down rapidly makes it average at 4-6%. I saw it jump to 10% one single time when minimizing a window, but haven't been able to reproduce that. And yeah, the 6200 is also reported as WDDM 1.0, but the driver is officially a Win8 driver from 2015.

If there's any good benchmark you have, I could easily give it a go on the 6200. I could also pop in the 8800GT again, keeping it until tomorrow.

I do regret that I didn't test my Pentium 3 1+ Ghz and 9800 Pro (AGP) on Windows 10 before selling them two years ago.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

john3850

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2002
1,436
21
81
Spjut said:
Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400 stock, 8800GT
Old Edge: 21.0 (ran it an extra time but still bad, 20.89)
Edge Chromium 83: 39.16
Firefox 77.0.1: 32.1 (31.4 without hw acceleration)
Chrome 83: 35.62
Opera 68: 35.57

I wonder if hw acceleration actually is doing anything useful in this test because disabling it on Chrome resulted in 36.72. And Chrome does say it's working when enabled, with "Out-of-process Rasterization" and "Rasterization" unavailable. Firefox just calls the Composition "Basic" and showing the various WebGL1 as supported.

Win10 1909, C2Q Q8400, Geforce 6200
Old Edge: 20.6
Edge Chromium: 38.80 (39.7 with hw disabled)
Chrome: 35.20 (36.39 with hw disabled)
Click to expand...
I am using a RX580 that makes no difference to the score in Chrome .
Now the Edge Dev is for developer people etc and might make a difference with latest RTX cards but I don't own a decent card to try it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom