Comments on: Browsers re-tested in the IE9 Testing Center, different results surface

By: Sir_yasir

Sir_yasir — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:27:00 +0000

dgsfdgsafd

By: Briana Espinoza

Briana Espinoza — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 06:28:59 +0000

@ Mitchel – Mozilla just kinda refuses to spend money implementing SVG Fonts, the last 3 points they need on Acid3: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/06/not_implementin.html

By: someone

someone — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:02:05 +0000

That makes IE bad because IE cuts off XP compatibility for hardware acceleration yet Opera with software rendering outperforms IE9 with hardware rendering in their OWN tests.

By: Thaddeus

Thaddeus — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:43:46 +0000

I would love to see this update, both for the new tests as well as most current verision of chrome. I wish the testing center had a ‘run test’ button and would display the results for your browser. But until then, I will keep coming back here for updates. thanks.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:24:27 +0000

Safari is good, I’m using the new Safari 5, and it’s fast. But Safari don’t have much extensions and plugins.

By: Mitch 74

Mitch 74 — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:18:53 +0000

The test suite has been updated, making most of these results inaccurate: IE 9 fails at some of the tests which had read the specification backward.
Gotta run’em all over again…

By: Mitchel Tyrell

Mitchel Tyrell — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:56:27 +0000

@Rafael Rivera

You might want to confirm with some experts on the quality of all of those test suite then, I just got this off of twitter.
http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/

By: Mattisdada

Mattisdada — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:10:42 +0000

Oh and my own peacekeeper benchmarks:
http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/results.action?key=2bJb

Fastest system:
Opera (v10.60)
16931 Points
Processor
Intel Core i7-920 Processor
Graphics card
ATI Radeon HD 5850
Memory
6144 MB
OS
Windows 7 Beta
Form factor
Desktop

By: Mattisdada

Mattisdada — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:07:48 +0000

Should do Opera 10.6 and Opera 10.5.

10.6 blows everything else out of the water in terms of performance and compatibility. It mightn’t be the most popular browsers, but in my eyes, it is the best.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 02:32:58 +0000

@someone: Dunno how you got your results, but on my Win7 machine IE9 significantly outperforms Opera on the graphics test suite. As DirectX rendering is wont to do, vs. software rendering.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:04:03 +0000

Dan the reason chrome scores higher than chromium is that google bundles more video/audio tag formats with the chrome releases, things like H.264 are not in Chromium but are available in Chrome

By: Kirkburn

Kirkburn — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:51:08 +0000

someone, sacrificing what image quality? Opera does indeed perform impressively, no doubt. Why does that make IE9 “bad”?

DigDug, spend money? You realise it’s mostly a volunteer effort? Did you even read the post you linked, which pointed out it’s basically nothing to do with time or money?

Rafael, thanks for the update. Gotta say though, Chrome/Webkit’s rate of advance truly is impressive.

By: DigDug

DigDug — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:48:09 +0000

@ Mitchel – Mozilla just kinda refuses to spend money implementing SVG Fonts, the last 3 points they need on Acid3: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/06/not_implementin.html

By: someone

someone — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:40:32 +0000

In MS’s own graphics tests, Opera performed far smoother (higher FPS) without sacrificing image quality than IE9 on Windows 7. IE9 sux. No XP support = EPIC FAIL.

By: Mitchel Tyrell

Mitchel Tyrell — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:04:07 +0000

Why is Firefox still failing some Acid 3 tests?

Is the latest nightlies for Firefox failing acid 3 as well?

By: Rafael

Rafael — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:42:22 +0000

Re-tested and updated accordingly. Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the screw up.

By: Rafael Rivera

Rafael Rivera — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:53:59 +0000

Thanks for the heads up, I’ll re-test and correct my mistakes… but how the hell do you find a May 10th build of 3.7x in this rat nest? http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/

By: Kirkburn

Kirkburn — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:49:08 +0000

Rafael, and Firefox 3.6.5 is not the next major version, 3.7a5pre is. 3.6.5 would be a security and stability fix release only, and is not where the main development occurs. I’m surprised you don’t know this.

It’s not glacial, you just looked in the wrong place.

By: Rafael Rivera

Rafael Rivera — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:23:22 +0000

Guys, the point of the re-testing was to level the play field. I tested with browsers -all- dated May 5, 2010.

By: Frederic

Frederic — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:21:09 +0000

For Firefox, it would probably be better to use the Minefield builds (3.7a5pre) to run the tests. You compared 3.6 to itself, since the version you used is identical to the one Microsoft used + security and stability fixes + out-of-process plugins, while the 3.7 alphas have progressed much further.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:16:56 +0000

Oh and as for my Chromium tests with the IE test site, it was looking the same as yours and counting by hand was getting tedious (I see no “Run all” button) so I quit and did the other benchmarks instead.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:15:36 +0000

Actually it might be even more fair to compare against trunks for Chrome and Firefox. That might be what you did for Firefox, but the Chromium build you tried looks out of date, the dev channel of Chrome is newer and that is like 2 weeks old.

I think I’ll try the benchmark myself (didn’t realize it was public when I made that tweet, my eyes went straight for the charts) with the newest Chrome since it’s relatively easy to do (http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-xp/ for nightlies) and they don’t conflict with any currently installed Chrome (Chrome and Chromium can coexist).

In honesty that tweet was just a knee-jerk reaction from the claim that IE is somehow magically more compatible than the other browsers after one release, when the others have been working at it harder for years. My suspicions are partly rooted int he fact that many of their fancy demos that perform better in IE are suspiciously graphically intensive… and they do tout DirectX rendering as being speedier than other browsers (which I don’t contest… yet. Firefox was looking into a similar feature). I suspect they are doing the same here… showcasing tests they know IE will ace.

So I just popped on over to a few independent benchmarking/testing sites.

IE9 preview scores a 19/160 at http://html5test.com/, while Chrome trunk gets 135 (Chrome Dev, being older, somehow gets 142). To be fair they’re going to update their tests there so we’ll see. But IE does clearly fail to skew the “Coming Soon” box at the bottom as Chrome correctly does.

I also hopped over to Peacekeeper (google it, it’s a browser benchmark suite). Chrome Dev scores 9106 for me, Chromium trunk 8395 (both setting high scores for my machine), and IE9 2357. IE9 even has a handicap applied; Peacekeeper does not run canvas tests for IE and doesn’t even factor in the 0 scored in to the results, which I really think they should do, since otherwise IE’s scores are inflated. Of course for IE9 it should actually run the tests, it doesn’t look like it did.

Both Chrome Dev and Chromium trunk pass Acid 3 flawlessly with 100% and perfect rendering, although Acid 3 complains test 69 was “less than perfect” though it passed. IE9 scores 68. A big improvement from IE8 but still not close. An iframe brielfly appears and is replaced by a white rectangle over the Acid text. “YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL” is shown prominently in the corner. The white on purple X, which I think is a web font test, shows (it should not). The final report on failed tests exceeds IE9′s character length for alert()s and is truncated.