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

91–100 of 183 posts

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

#91

Post by kouteiheika »

CharlesW wrote: post #82
kouteiheika wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it though? In my experience it's the buggiest browser out of the big three, and is often missing basic features like e.g.: https://caniuse.com/?search=opus Supported in Firefox for *12 years* now, in Chrome for 10, still no support in Safari. They only "support" Opus audio in their special snowflake '.caf' container, which is super buggy and the last time I checked no open source program could even generate Opus…

> You shouldn't have to do this to have cross-browser high quality audio! You don't, because HE-AACv2 is as universal as MP3 and better than Opus at low bitrates. That said, Safari for macOS and iOS plays all the examples at https://opus-codec.org/examples/ except the last.

> That said, Safari for macOS and iOS plays all the examples at https://opus-codec.org/examples/ except the last.

That's because none of those samples are Opus files, except the last one. It even says so on the page.

> You don't, because HE-AACv2 is as universal as MP3 and better than Opus at low bitrates.

No. I did evaluate it before picking Opus. It only beats Opus at very low bitrates, and open source encoders for AAC suck.

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

#93

Post by apfsx »

I tested this with Firefox stable release and Brave stable release, 3 runs on each. Same exact extensions across both.

Highest scores across tests: Firefox: 6.34 +- 0.31 Brave: 11.3 +- 0.37 on Ryzen 9 7940HS + RTX 3060 mobile

Which really sucks since I highly prefer Firefox but this past week I've been trying out Brave and I think its noticeably faster and smoother to me. Even with the reduced speed I'm still swayed toward Firefox for the customization factor you can achieve with userchrome.css file.

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

#94

Post by no_way »

CharlesW wrote: post #39
vikingtoby wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is it though? https://wpt.fyi/interop-2024

Just go to home page https://wpt.fyi/ see chart "Browser-specific failures are the number of WPT tests which fail in exactly one browser." Safari leads by a longshot with over 3800 tests failing only in Safari. Firefox has 1700 and Chrome less which kinda correlates to my own personal development experience.

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

#95

Post by denysonique »

apfsx wrote: post #93

I tested this with Firefox stable release and Brave stable release, 3 runs on each. Same exact extensions across both. Highest scores across tests: Firefox: 6.34 +- 0.31 Brave: 11.3 +- 0.37 on Ryzen 9 7940HS + RTX 3060 mobile Which really sucks since I highly prefer Firefox but this past week I've been trying out Brave and I think its noticeably faster and smoother to me. Even with the reduced speed I'm still swayed…

Even if you have the exact same extensions the fact that you have an old Firefox profile may be hindering the results. Try comparing with a fresh Firefox profile with the same extensions.

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

#96

Post by apfsx »

denysonique wrote: post #95
apfsx wrote: post #93

I tested this with Firefox stable release and Brave stable release, 3 runs on each. Same exact extensions across both. Highest scores across tests: Firefox: 6.34 +- 0.31 Brave: 11.3 +- 0.37 on Ryzen 9 7940HS + RTX 3060 mobile Which really sucks since I highly prefer Firefox but this past week I've been trying out Brave and I think its noticeably faster and smoother to me. Even with the reduced speed I'm still swayed…

Even if you have the exact same extensions the fact that you have an old Firefox profile may be hindering the results. Try comparing with a fresh Firefox profile with the same extensions.

The Firefox profile I'm using is no more than 3 weeks old. Fresh install of Windows was done around that time.

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

#98

Post by lapcat »

charcircuit wrote: post #80
lapcat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't say anything about what the scores mean. 21 is apparently better than 20, but how much better? You could say "1 better", tautologically, but how does that relate to the real world? Driving a car 1 mile per hour faster may be better, in a sense, but even if you drove 24 hours straight, it would only gain you 24 total miles, which is almost negligible on such a long trip. Nobody would be impressed by that…

It means it is 5% faster. You are overcomplicating it.

Percentages are rarely informative without an absolute reference.

A 5% raise for someone who makes $20k per year is $1k, whereas a 5% raise for someone who makes $200k is $10k, which would be a 50% raise for the former.

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

#99

Post by om2 »

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #11

Related annoucement post: Improving Performance in Firefox and Across the Web with Speedometer 3 https://hacks.mozilla.org/2024/03/improving-performance-in-f...

Another related announcement, with a bit more detail on specifics of the benchmark changes (and some history of Speedometer): https://webkit.org/blog/15131/speedometer-3-0-the-best-way-y...

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

#100

Post by CharlesW »

kouteiheika wrote: post #91
CharlesW wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You shouldn't have to do this to have cross-browser high quality audio! You don't, because HE-AACv2 is as universal as MP3 and better than Opus at low bitrates. That said, Safari for macOS and iOS plays all the examples at https://opus-codec.org/examples/ except the last.

> That said, Safari for macOS and iOS plays all the examples at https://opus-codec.org/examples/ except the last. That's because none of those samples are Opus files, except the last one. It even says so on the page. > You don't, because HE-AACv2 is as universal as MP3 and better than Opus at low bitrates. No. I did evaluate it before picking Opus. It only beats Opus at very low bitrates, and open source encoders for…

> That's because none of those samples are Opus files, except the last one.

Ooof, I didn't even imagine that the official examples were WAV files. Here's an Opus audio file that plays fine in Safari on macOS and iOS: https://kur-static.biblica.com/audio/GEN_001.webm (Note: I have no idea what this content is, but could not find any English Opus content in the wild.)

> …and open source encoders for AAC suck.

Yeah, the disparity is a real bummer.

Post reply on HN