Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#1

Post by rnyman » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 9:14 AM UTC

Massive: The asm.js Benchmark
hacks.mozilla.org

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#2

Post by itsbits » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 9:53 AM UTC

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#3

Post by acqq » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:03 AM UTC

itsbits wrote: post #2

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

Run it with your Chrome and post the results:

http://kripken.github.io/Massive/

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#4

Post by amelius » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:16 AM UTC

They forgot to include two things:

  * Performance on the native architecture
  * Performance on other browsers (Chrome/IE in particular)

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#5

Post by fridek » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:21 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #3

itsbits wrote: post #2

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

Run it with your Chrome and post the results: http://kripken.github.io/Massive/

I have Intel i7 running on Linux.

Got 2,984 running Chrome 38 and 8,778 on Firefox 33, but I think now it's just fair to wait for couple of iterations of Chrome to identify bottlenecks and fix them.

It's not uncommon for benchmarks to focus on some particular strength/weakness that is easily fixable. The same happened with Firefox and Octane 2.0.

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#6

Post by specialdragon » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:25 AM UTC

itsbits wrote: post #2

would love to know how is the performance in V8 chrome js engine??

Their 'copy results' isn't terribly useful however:

http://pastie.org/9692975

My results, Chrome Version 38.0.2125.111 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 14.04

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#7

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:32 AM UTC

fridek wrote: post #5

acqq wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run it with your Chrome and post the results: http://kripken.github.io/Massive/

I have Intel i7 running on Linux. Got 2,984 running Chrome 38 and 8,778 on Firefox 33, but I think now it's just fair to wait for couple of iterations of Chrome to identify bottlenecks and fix them. It's not uncommon for benchmarks to focus on some particular strength/weakness that is easily fixable. The same happened with Firefox and Octane 2.0.

I'm not sure if Chrome is ever going to catch up to Firefox here. It's been slower than Firefox at asm.js ever since it was announced, because Chrome doesn't do AOT compilation for it.

EDIT: Although I suppose JIT compilers would love asm.js as it has all the type info they want, but there's probably tons of overhead there thus explaining how Chrome has worse results.

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#8

Post by higherpurpose » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:35 AM UTC

I prefer asm.js over NaCl, especially when NaCl has been available for years, and Google still supports the ARM architecture poorly, and as a second class citizen in NaCl.

It's unacceptable that a "browser-os" that should have no problem being architecture agnostic, still gives Intel an edge with ChromeOS, because not all NaCl apps work on ARM Chromebooks. Seriously, how crazy is that?

I can understand ARM not having a serious chance on Windows laptops because of all the legacy x86 programs, but at worst it should be equal with x86 running an OS such as Chrome OS.

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#9

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:39 AM UTC

higherpurpose wrote: post #8

I prefer asm.js over NaCl, especially when NaCl has been available for years, and Google still supports the ARM architecture poorly, and as a second class citizen in NaCl. It's unacceptable that a "browser-os" that should have no problem being architecture agnostic, still gives Intel an edge with ChromeOS, because not all NaCl apps work on ARM Chromebooks. Seriously, how crazy is that? I can understand ARM not having…

I agree. asm.js has several strengths over NaCl and even PNaCl:

* It is just JavaScript, so any browser can execute asm.js code, but it can be AOT compiled by some browsers for extra performance - This means every browser supports asm.js, and supports it today

* It doesn't require a new runtime or API, merely using the existing web APIs

* It is simple for other browser vendors to implement, and isn't reliant on a single implementation

* It can interface with existing JavaScript code, so it can use JS libraries and, similarly, JS code can use asm.js libraries

* It is a completely open standard

* It is architecture-independent (so's PNaCl, though)

Re: Massive: The asm.js Benchmark

#10

Post by masklinn » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:57 AM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

higherpurpose wrote: post #8

I prefer asm.js over NaCl, especially when NaCl has been available for years, and Google still supports the ARM architecture poorly, and as a second class citizen in NaCl. It's unacceptable that a "browser-os" that should have no problem being architecture agnostic, still gives Intel an edge with ChromeOS, because not all NaCl apps work on ARM Chromebooks. Seriously, how crazy is that? I can understand ARM not having…

I agree. asm.js has several strengths over NaCl and even PNaCl: * It is just JavaScript, so any browser can execute asm.js code, but it can be AOT compiled by some browsers for extra performance - This means every browser supports asm.js, and supports it today * It doesn't require a new runtime or API, merely using the existing web APIs * It is simple for other browser vendors to implement, and isn't reliant on a sin…

> It is just JavaScript, so any browser can execute asm.js code, but it can be AOT compiled by some browsers for extra performance

Or JIT-compiled with phases specifically built for the kind of JS it produces e.g. Webkit's FTL tends to work very well on asm.js code, though it's not an asm.js AOT compiler.

> It doesn't require a new runtime or API, merely using the existing web APIs

That's not entirely true, AFAIK asm.js adds at least two functions to the Math namespace (imul and fround)