BB10 browser Javascipt (ECMAScript) compliance/performance
In a previous thread, we discussed about BB10 Browser HTML5 compliance. It lead to various considerations and finally, turn out to "performance".
In my opinion, performance tests with a developer device is not valuable, as it is well known its hardware is specific and OS not yet optimized "in full".
Yet, some have posted some sunspider tests ... but I don't like this test alone: speed is something that will be ruined by exceptions and errors handling.
So I ran the test262 on my dev alpha and on my desktop ( W7 Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4Ghz + 3Go RAM) browsers : FireFox 16.0.2 and Google Chrome 23.0.1271.95 m
Don't want to bother reading the following ? 2 words : amazing BB10.
Basically, BB10 Browser is above with only 8 failed tests ... better than Chrome, nothing less.
Why Chrome base is important ? Because this test is based on the Sputnik test that was created by ... Google.
Now you tell me ...
2/ And the perfs ?
On the first run, I had the devAlpha and Firefox.
Hit the start all buttons together ... wouch ! in the 30 first seconds, Firefox (on my PC) seemed to be something that 3X quicker than the BB10 Browser.
But after a while (maybe 3-4 minutes), the gap was only a 2X factor.
Then Firefox hit numerous errors ... while the devAlpha was running smoothly with 0 errors ... and the gap wasn't a X factor anymore ... almost catched up Firefox until the end of the test.
When FF finished, DA was at 80%.
After that, Chrome ran smoothly the tests, and it keep the 2-3X factor all way long. Back to normality : my PC pees further than my DA (this rude/poor image is a private joke). CPUs expert may want to compare and give an theoretical performance ratio ... just sounds "fair" to me. Once again, this has no real sense ...
3/ So what ?
For connected devices, compliance IS the first key. You have to remember that each access to the web (to load specific fragments of code, to handle errors messages/pages and/or logs) is a deep hole in overall performance. Sure it's not enough, it's just mandatory before the "engines" get polished and optimized. I've never seen a beta OS/Browser being that much impressive and I'm certain we've not seen it all.
Last edited by Superfly_FR; 12-04-12 at 07:25 AM.
- 12-04-12, 06:44 AM #3
Just like everyone said in the other thread, compliance on random standards means almost nothing. Even more so on tests that are admittedly unfinished or reporting false positives.
Few consumers have ever cared about these standards up until now, and it's likely going to stay that way.
RIM needs to fix this instead of worrying about random standards and draft specifications:
Random standards : ECMA ... roflol. http://www.ecma-international.org/
- 12-04-12, 07:01 AM #6
Well I did a bit of a chrono test and the results (estimated on completion since they were completing fairly quickly at parts) are here:
Time - Completed - Failed
2min - 1100 - 0
3min - 2250 - 0
4min - 3520 - 0
5min - 3694 - 0
6min - 3746 - 0
7min - 4580 - 0
8min - 5680 - 0
9min - 6700 - 0
10min - 7710 - 0
11min - 8600 - 0
12min - 9410 - 0
13min - 10401 - 0
14min - 11203 - 8
14:24min - 11571 - 8
Failed tests are:
220.127.116.11_CE - Tests that String.prototype.localeCompare returns - when comparing Strings that are considered canonically equivalent by the Unicode Standard
S18.104.22.168_A24 - Checking if Math.pow(argument1, argument2) is approximately equals to its mathematical value on the set of 64 argument1 values and 64 argument2 values, all the sample values is calculated with LibC
S22.214.171.124_A5_T1 - 2 arguments, (year, month)
S126.96.36.199_A5_T2 - 3 arguments, (year, month, date)
S188.8.131.52_A5_T3 - 4 arguments, (year, month, date, hours)
S184.108.40.206_A5_T4 - 5 arguments, (year, month, date, hours, minutes)
S220.127.116.11_A5_T5 - 6 arguments, (year, month, date, hours, minutes, seconds)
S18.104.22.168_A5_T6 - 7 arguments, (year, month, date, hours, minutes, seconds, ms)
- 12-04-12, 07:17 AM #9
- 12-04-12, 07:20 AM #10
- 12-04-12, 07:38 AM #11
GS3 using Dolphin.
I'm impressed by the BB10's browser high compliance score, however I would be more impressed with how it does on real web pages.
I suppose you have tried it on some actual websites? Would be interested if you shared those findings. It's understood that it is still running a pre-release version.
I tried out those seven tests on my iPad2/iOS5 and it performed quite well when it was able to run the test.
1. blank page
5. did not render the kaleidoscope
6. n/a (Flash)
7. did not run
Last edited by notafanboy; 12-04-12 at 07:55 AM.
- 12-04-12, 08:16 AM #16
Anyway, here are some more fun websites to try. HTML5 Gallery
- CrackBerry Genius
12-04-12, 08:26 AM #17
- 2,760 Posts
- If ur sexy>>>pm me
I'm pretty sure the BB 10 browser hasn't reach a point where its being heavily optimized. Eventually it'll freeze and go into high octane optimization IMHO. Anyone know the internal current state of the browser? Is it primarily focused on construction or optimization currently?
- 12-04-12, 08:44 AM #18
For all tests I assumed default settings, and i full screened those that were able. Also keep in mind this is alpha hardware with beta software. The full browser should be significantly better. (the Dev browser does NOT pass the Facebook ring test level 1, it fails on 3 tests while the current London build passes level 1)
Last edited by Superfly_FR; 12-04-12 at 09:35 AM.
- Two players games online : Single Player/ Sniper Hero. Flash game (enabled during session, no exit/restart) , keyboard required but loads fast and sound clear.
- Adek lots of videos/images/sound : normal browsing, some resize temporary issues (css positioning ?) yet good scaling. Tested peek (to the hub) : working fine. Minimize = stop sound
- Aleksi Liukkonen : portfolio. Not sure there is not a mobile theme applied (should force portrait orientation IMHO), grey svale to color OK, open image ok.
Nothing very tricky on these sites, I believe. I'll search for others later.
- 12-04-12, 11:48 AM #21
BB10 browser Javascipt (ECMAScript) compliance/performance
Those sunspider scores are pretty rough for a CPU that beefy. Not terrible, just not great by any means. I guess we'll just hope that they optimize the engine sooner rather than later.
Does anyone know what JS engine they're building on? Is it the old torch engine, or something new?
- 12-04-12, 12:01 PM #22
- 12-04-12, 12:25 PM #24
- By wolfd1 in forum BlackBerry PlayBookReplies: 13Last Post: 11-04-12, 04:32 AM
- By cfx_will in forum BlackBerry 10 Dev DevicesReplies: 4Last Post: 10-20-12, 09:01 AM
- By bbpandy in forum General BlackBerry DiscussionReplies: 15Last Post: 09-27-12, 12:48 PM
- By jamezalexander in forum General BlackBerry DiscussionReplies: 12Last Post: 09-26-12, 06:34 PM
- By jamezalexander in forum General BlackBerry DiscussionReplies: 3Last Post: 09-26-12, 02:52 PM