The Following User Says Thank You to ddalex For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 12:33
|
Posts: 47 |
Thanked: 16 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#12
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 12:35
|
Posts: 13 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ BG, Ruse
|
#13
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 12:36
|
Posts: 670 |
Thanked: 747 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Kansas City, Missouri, USA
|
#14
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 12:38
|
|
Posts: 4,783 |
Thanked: 1,253 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ norway
|
#15
|
The Following User Says Thank You to tso For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 13:04
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#17
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 13:55
|
Posts: 323 |
Thanked: 180 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Gent, Belgium
|
#18
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 13:56
|
Posts: 674 |
Thanked: 191 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ Buenos Aires, Argentina
|
#19
|
![]() |
2009-11-04
, 14:03
|
Posts: 3,841 |
Thanked: 1,079 times |
Joined on Nov 2006
|
#20
|
![]() |
Tags |
performance javascript |
|
Desktop results around my testing vary from 64 fps on Firefox 3.5.4 and 65 fps on IExplorer 8.0.7600 to 228 fps Chrome 4.0.223 and 250 fps Chrome 3.0.195.27, all on the same Lenovo T61p with Windows 7.
It's quite impressive for an handheld ARM WebKit device to get better javascript performance than Firefox on a dual core x86 machine. Safari on MacBookPros got from 88 to 98 depending on the exact hardware.
This shows that impressive performance of Javascript on ARM is possible, and that Safari is better tuned on mobile devices than Mozilla.