

IE9, FF4, Chrome 6 Browser Benchmark - bobf
http://www.lucidchart.com/blog/2010/09/16/ie9-ff4-beta-in-real-world-benchmark/

======
Perceval
Fx4b6 does not include the new JaegerMonkey javascript engine, so the lack of
a speedup compared to Fx3.6 is not terribly surprising.

JaegerMonkey is in Fx nightly builds at the moment and is supposed to be
featured in Fx4b7 (to be released later this month).

------
acqq
Note that it's an "user drags something in the UI and we measure something"
benchmark, so it's potentially suspicious if the things measured are
comparable at all in different runs and browsers.

For example, in games, frames per seconds are measured under basic assumption
that the game has the mode in which there's no limit the increase of frames
per second other than the speed of rendering and that that mode is always
identically reproducible.

Are we sure about that here?

And as others noted, they are using the old version of Opera, 10.53 instead of
10.62 which is current.

------
bobf
As an interesting comparison, I just saw that John Resig posted a benchmark of
jQuery.css() performance across browsers. It doesn't include IE9, but does
include Opera 10.62 and FF 4.0b6 -
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeresig/4999526752/>

------
bustamove
Since you are testing all beta versions here, why not use Chrome 7 beta for a
new benchmark ?

~~~
bobf
Good question :) I didn't write the article, maybe ask @lucidchart on Twitter?
According to the actual article title though, it seems the main interest was
testing FF4 and IE9 against existing browsers, which would explain the absence
of dev channel versions of Chrome.

~~~
magamiako
Or more interestingly, they were looking at providing the best numbers to push
their agenda the furthest.

As noted in a previous comment, a fair comparison would be to run a proper
benchmark--which guarantees similar operating conditions.

