Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

browserbench.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 183 posts

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#21

Post by julienwaj »

tux3 wrote: post #19
lapcat wrote: post #18

This may be a dumb question, but what do the scores even mean? Is this explained anywhere? Neither https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.0/about.html nor https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.0/instructions.html appear to explain it. Are lower scores better, or higher scores?

Higher is better. The analogy is speed. You want more speed. It's not a physical speed, just a benchmark number. Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine.

If the analogy isn't working for you, you can see the actual durations when you click on "Details".

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#23

Post by lapcat »

tux3 wrote: post #19
lapcat wrote: post #18

This may be a dumb question, but what do the scores even mean? Is this explained anywhere? Neither https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.0/about.html nor https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.0/instructions.html appear to explain it. Are lower scores better, or higher scores?

Higher is better. The analogy is speed. You want more speed. It's not a physical speed, just a benchmark number. Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine.

> You want more speed.

On the other hand, premature optimization is the root of all evil.

> Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine.

That's precisely the problem. It's arbitrary, meaningless. Without any physical units, I don't know what's good or bad, fast or slow. And why do the scores go from 0 to 140 when the web browsers are all getting approximately 20?

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#26

Post by julienwaj »

lapcat wrote: post #23
tux3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher is better. The analogy is speed. You want more speed. It's not a physical speed, just a benchmark number. Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine.

> You want more speed. On the other hand, premature optimization is the root of all evil. > Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine. That's precisely the problem. It's arbitrary, meaningless. Without any physical units, I don't know what's good or bad, fast or slow. And why do the scores go from 0 to 140 when the web browsers are all getting approx…

The score goes from 0 to 140 so that there's some room for when the computers will get faster. When we started working on this, all browsers were maxed at 140, so the computation got changed.

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#27

Post by tentacleuno »

CharlesW wrote: post #9
kossTKR wrote: post #4

Hopefully at some point actual click latency will be fixed in general after some dark decades. Still incredible that a gameboy or an 80's computer with a CRT feels more responsive than most devices these days. Bring back tactility. I'm convinced the choppiness and weird waits are actually psychologically stressing us out. That's why good keyboards + old low latency OS'es or typewriters are so soothing to use.

> Hopefully at some point actual click latency will be fixed in general after some dark decades. Meaning, the 300ms delay (if the site developer does no optimization) with mobile browsers?

Context for the 300ms delay: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/300ms-tap-delay-gone-away/

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#29

Post by treyd »

lapcat wrote: post #23
tux3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher is better. The analogy is speed. You want more speed. It's not a physical speed, just a benchmark number. Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine.

> You want more speed. On the other hand, premature optimization is the root of all evil. > Think of it as arbitrary units, which allows you to compare different version of browsers on the same machine. That's precisely the problem. It's arbitrary, meaningless. Without any physical units, I don't know what's good or bad, fast or slow. And why do the scores go from 0 to 140 when the web browsers are all getting approx…

> On the other hand, premature optimization is the root of all evil.

The web ecosystem is extremely mature and widely used. The workloads are fairly well understood. It is a magic unit, but the factors that go into it have a lot of thought from real-world scenarios. Bringing up "premature optimization" is completely irrelevant because that's not what this is, it's about as far as you can get from that.

Re: Speedometer 3.0: A shared browser benchmark for web application responsiveness

#30

Post by CharlesW »

tentacleuno wrote: post #27
CharlesW wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hopefully at some point actual click latency will be fixed in general after some dark decades. Meaning, the 300ms delay (if the site developer does no optimization) with mobile browsers?

Context for the 300ms delay: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/300ms-tap-delay-gone-away/

Some other ways to mitigate: https://www.sitepoint.com/5-ways-prevent-300ms-click-delay-m...
Post reply on HN