7
edits
Changes
→Results
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7191</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/browser-pong/ Browser Pong]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>Not much to be said of speed. Both browsers seemed to be identical</td> <td>A little jerky on window redraw when moving "paddle" compared to Chromium</td> <td>Both very responsive, utilized same processor amount (4.6% on Minefield, 5.8% on Chromium)</td> <td>"Ball" window rendered considerably taller in Chromium. Closing parent window orphans paddle and ball windows, they remain dead (but interactivable) on screen</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7292</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/2d-cloth-simulation/ 2D Cloth Simulation]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>Fairly fluid drawing on both Minefield and Chromium. Can slow on Minefield if draw trackers (dots) are added while curtain is in high state of flux</td> <td>Smooth</td> <td>Minefield was a little slow to pick up on mouse clicks</td> <td>Processor utilization same on both (avg Minefield was 34%, avg Chromium was 37%). Chromiummuch lighter on memory</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7393</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/animated-harmonograph/ Animated Harmonograph]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>Drawing of complex patterns on Minefield would sometimes cause centre to "wobble"</td> <td>Redraw very slow on Minefield, sub-16 FPS. Chromium very fast and smooth.</td> <td>Both slow to pick up on mouse clicks, Firefox slightly slower</td> <td>Minefield slowly leaked memory (8MB over 10 minutes), CPU was pegged at 100% (Chromium's avg was 86%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7494</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/jscanvasbike/ jsCanvasBike]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>No difference found</td> <td>Minefield seemed a little less smooth when the bike suddenly changed speed. Smoothness generally went down as prolonged periods of speed went up.</td> <td>Movements responded well to input. CPU pegged during long periods user input (such as holding down keys to accelerate or balance on one wheel)</td> <td>Minefield guzzled 160MB of memory over 4 minutes of constant driving, Chromium's would remain constant with short, periodic spikes.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7595</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/venetianization/ Venetianization]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>No problems.</td> <td>No problems.</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>10% higher on processor in Minefield than in Chromium(73.496% avg compared to 60% avg), with much more resources (140 MB compared to 80 MB)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7696</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/catch-it/ Catch It!]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>15/09/2010</td>
<td>Very quick on Firefox, great fun!</td> <td>Smooth redraw, felt like PC game</td> <td>Very responsive</td> <td>Sluggish and near-unplayable in Chromium. Less CPU in Minefield (4-12%, compared to 9-15% in Chromium) but more memory usage.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7797</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/liquid-particles/ Liquid Particles]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>16/09/2010</td>
<td>Occasionally Minefield would not render more than 4 particle dots (should be around 100).</td> <td>Very choppy on Minefield when drawing both particles and the letters version</td> <td>Sometimes unresponsive for up to a second due to high CPU usage</td> <td>Incredibly CPU intensive. Perfmon shows CPU usage as 600% at some points. Chromium and Minefieldboth ran letters version choppy (Minefield slightly more so), though Chromium could handle particle version very well</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7898</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/harmony/ Harmony]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>16/09/2010</td>
<td>Very smooth rendering</td> <td>The Graphics were very smooth.</td> <td>Very responsive during normal drawing. CPU spike when converting drawing to a PNG image</td> <td>Both Minefield and Chromium ran this well. Chromium used much more CPU on average than Minefield</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7999</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/realtime-video-ascii-conversion/ Realtime Video->ASCII Conversion]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>16/09/2010</td>
<td>Rendering was great for both, ASCII characters don't take much to draw</td> <td>Has harder time converting at higher "resolutions" (ASCII character size decreases) than at higher scales (larger canvas)</td> <td>Became quite unresponsive over time, especially at higher resolutions and scales</td> <td>Chromium handled higher resolutions noticeably better than Minefield, though Minefield handled higher scales slightly better than Chromium.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>80100</td>
<td>[http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/internet-graffiti-board/ Internet Graffiti Board]</td>
<td>[http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/User:SWeerdenburg Steven Weerdenburg]</td>
<td>16/09/2010</td>
<td>Quick on both</td> <td>Smooth</td> <td>Input was very responsive.</td> <td>Both Minefield and Chromium ran this test very well. Both had a bug in that it was possible to mess up the "drag and drop" functionality of the sketch pad: likely a programming error and how the onMouseOver, onMouseDrag and onMouseOut events are handled.</td>
</tr>
</table>