This is just wonderful. (I tried to download a Firefox Nightly to check out Tracemonkey for myself but figuring out how took more than ten seconds, so I gave up. Here are some stats from Windows (note that these are running under VMWare Fusion, so it’s not fair to compare to the Mac figures directly).
Firefox 3.0.1 (Windows XP Professional/VMWare Fusion)
- Score: 208
- Richards: 207
- DeltaBlue: 264
- Crypto: 157
- RayTrace: 180
- EarleyBoyer: 251
Google Chrome (Windows XP Professional/VMWare Fusion)
- Score: 2117
- Richards: 2593
- DeltaBlue: 2482
- Crypto: 1692
- RayTrace: 1456
- EarleyBoyer: 2685
Internet Explorer 8.0 Beta 2
Note: IE8 interrupts each run with a “script is running slowly” dialog. I tried to click this off as quickly as I could but it definitely hurt the benchmark slightly. I ran it three times, dismissing the dialog as quickly as possible and took the best score.
- Score: 58
- Richards: 47
- DeltaBlue: 52
- Crypto: 50
- RayTrace: 69
- EarleyBoyer: 75
Sunspider’s results are really detailed, and I’m not going to post the whole things here, but I got the following bottom line results from a single run of each. In the Webkit case, this was with half a dozen tabs open (including this blog entry), while Chrome had two tabs open, one of which was displaying the results of its earlier benchmark (not very taxing, I expect).
Webkit r36685: 1614.6ms +/- 7.5% (running native under OS X)
Google Chrome: 1458.2ms +/- 0.4% (running under XP/VMWare; yes, faster is better)
Webkit r36685: 6652.60ms (running native under OSX)
Google Chrome: 10540.80ms (running under XP/VMWare)
So on both Google’s and Apple’s preferred benchmarks, I’m seeing better performance out of Google Chrome, but not by much. Dromaeo, which is a very DOM-intensive suite and also appears the most comprehensive, favors Webkit. (And, yes, IE8 is pitiful. No, I am not going to try Sunspider or Dromaeo on IE8.)
The really annoying thing is that Apple isn’t very aggressive about pushing advances in webkit out to the masses. Or, to put it another way, they use new versions of Safari to sell new versions of Mac OS X*. Chances are Squirrelfish Extreme‘s performance will be a key selling point of Snow Leopard when it ships, instead of a free upgrade to Safari, which is what it ought to be. In the mean time, we’ll probably need to use some other Webkit-based browser or Webkit Nightly, or simply use Firefox to enjoy better performance.
Note: as a comment — rather rudely — points out, Apple doesn’t charge for Safari upgrades. But it does hold new features back so it can announce them as though they were new OS features. (Edit: and, actually, it doesn’t support Safari on versions of Mac OS X before 10.4.x, so technically I was completely correct and the aptly named “bs” was full of bs.) A case in point is the debugging functionality added to Webkit over a year before it became available in Safari as part of Leopard. (And yes, you can get it for Tiger, but the marketing would have you believe it was a Leopard feature, and you simply can’t get it for Panther or earlier.)
This site is the most interesting attempt I’ve found to seriously compare execution speed across languages. It should obviously be taken with more than a grain of salt since, apart from all the usual issues with benchmarks (artificiality, etc.), the quality of the code written in each language may vary greatly, as may the actual algorithms, and different algorithms may favor different languages, and different languages are used for different things and, obviously, benchmark comparisons try to force everything to do the same thing. Still, it is interesting.