←back to thread

164 points undercut | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.195s | source
1. cjblomqvist ◴[] No.41861633[source]
If anyone have a comparison with V8 that would be great!
replies(3): >>41862732 #>>41862843 #>>41868892 #
2. emmanueloga_ ◴[] No.41862732[source]
Not sure what kind of comparison you mean, but you can compare desktop browsers with [1].

I just ran it on my mac M2 Max and got:

    (F)irefox 131.0.3
    (E)dge 129.0, V8 12.9.17.8
    (S)afari 18.0 (20619.1.26.31.6)

    Speedometer 3.0
    (F) 25.9  
    (E) 22.3
    (S) 30.9

    JetStream2
    (F) 251.787
    (E) 350.74
    (S) 360.568
Safari seems slightly faster in all benchmarks. I did not run motionmark because it takes forever :-/. The page says JetStream2 is what you want if you want to benchmark wasm.

How this relates to TFA, no idea ... is not really easy to tell which version of SpiderMonkey is running on the installed Firefox.

--

1: https://browserbench.org/

replies(1): >>41863230 #
3. kevingadd ◴[] No.41862843[source]
https://arewefastyet.com/ has various comparisons between Firefox and Chrome, the script oriented ones are basically Spidermonkey vs V8
4. KwanEsq ◴[] No.41863230[source]
Spidermonkey just follows Firefox version numbering, so far as I know, and the linked bugs in the article seem to have landed in a mix of the 132 and 133 milestones, so you'll have to wait a couple of release cycles for the full effect.
5. flohofwoe ◴[] No.41868892[source]
AFAIK Chrome already does the "function by function" ompilation approach that's hinted at the end of the article.