Per this thread here
I thought the idea interesting to try our own hardware and see what the results are.
Using the Speedometer 2.0 benchmark, test your browser and report your scores. Be sure to include the following…
Feel free to test as many browsers as you like and as many operating systems as you have.
You have a point. Sorry.
I fail to see how that is relevant information here.
Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3.4GHz (stock)
2x 8GB Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 @ 2133Mhz
Win7 HP 64-bit
1080p60
FirefoxQuantum_66.0.5_64bit
Chromium_65.0.3295.0_32bit
Vivaldi_2.5.1525.40_32bit
Win7_Opera_60.0.3255.84
7700k @ 4.6GHz
24GB RAM @ 2400MHz
Win 10 1803 build 17134.472
1080p @ 60Hz
Chrome Version 74.0.3729.131 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Vivaldi 1.15.1147.64 (Stable channel) (32-bit)
Vivaldi 2.5.1525.41 (Stable channel) (32-bit) Had a bit of an update to do
Firefox Quantum 66.0.5 (64-bit) Fell on its face, I ran this run twice thinking it was a fluke… big oof
Vivaldi is stomping the field for me. Will test again in fedora.
Fedora 29 results (same hardware specs as above):
Chrome Version 74.0.3729.131 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Vivaldi 2.5.1525.41 (Stable channel) (64-bit)
Firefox Quantum 66.0.4 (64-bit)
This is really interesting, chrome and vivaldi took a hit while firefox benched better in linux.
I Benched my Work Laptop:
Core i5 4210M
No dedicated Graphics.
16GB DDR3 1600 RAM
POP OS 19.04 latest Updates Installed
Three 1080p Screens at 60Hz (Browser only ran on one).
For completeness, i’m running Openbox with Tint2. I could later rebench on Gnome and XFCE.
Both Browsers had 4 Tabs open (Test included). Both had the same Tabs, same Sites at the Same point open. If necessary i can rebench with no Tabs open. I thought some variety might be interesting though.
Interestingly, the Results show exactly what i’m feeling as well. That Chrome is significantly faster in actual usage.
I failed to get the Detailed Results, so here is the big number. I’ll redo the tests and update the Pictures later.
Edit: Updated with Detailed Results. I’ll leave the others below as i reran the test in a single tab without others open.
Chrome 74.0.3729.157 (64 Bit)
Firefox 66.0.5 (64-Bit)
“Old” Results without Details. In this case with the 4 Tabs open.
Chrome 74.0.3729.157 (64 Bit)
Firefox 66.0.5 (64-Bit)
Not sure if this is usefull, but i started putting the numbers into a Google Spreadsheet:
Feel free to add anything to that. I’ll try to keep this current with what gets posted here.
Windows 10
3x1200p60
Intel Core i7-7700 3.60GHz
Ram 16GB 2133Mhz
Firefox 67.0b19 64Bit
Chromium 67.0.3396.99 64Bit
(forgot to screenshot)
Vivaldi 2.5.1525.40 64Bit
45.6
Interesting.
So we have a 7700 and a 7700k that are nominally 400Mhz apart (non overclocked boost clock) that differ by a factor of 2-3? Seems unlikely that this is CPU bound…
Both on Windows 10 though. I doubt that 8G of RAM make a huge difference. Is resolution that important?
I can’t really make sense of those results compared to @Adubs results.
my 7700k is 4.6ghz all core
Hmm, but the 7700 should Boost to 4.2Ghz, shouldn’t it? If this test is single threaded and used CPU, this should lead to maximum boost clock on the 7700, shouldn’t it?
Assuming its not thermally limited and literally nothing else is hitting the machine.
Might be a general resource issue
74% ram usage is lower than normal for me
This is my work dell Optiplex 7050
Quick run on my home machine:
I’ll do the full test later.
i5 6500
16G DDR4 2366 RAM
Windows 10 1809
The 7700 feels kinda low.
I think theres our answer
Probably power limit goofiness
I could test my 8750h too, its kinda similar in single thread.
Good shout. I’ll clean my machine of running stuff now and do some comparisons.
Overall, Firefox seems to be quite a bit slower though.
Should there be a section in the doc for model of the machine (if pre-built)?
Perhaps but I think its just being a laptop is all. Plug in, change your power profile to max perfomance and see if that score doesnt come up.
I don’t think that’s a Laptop with an 7700. More like a small tower.
