Test No. |
Test Name |
Tester |
Date |
Firefox Performance - Speed |
Firefox Performance - Smoothness |
Firefox Performance - Responsiveness |
Notes and other Details |
71 |
Browser Pong |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
Not much to be said of speed. Both browsers seemed to be identical |
A little jerky on window redraw when moving "paddle" compared to Chromium |
Both very responsive, utilized same processor amount (4.6% on Minefield, 5.8% on Chromium) |
"Ball" window rendered considerably taller in Chromium. Closing parent window orphans paddle and ball windows, they remain dead (but interactivable) on screen |
72 |
2D Cloth Simulation |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
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 |
Smooth |
Minefield was a little slow to pick up on mouse clicks |
Processor utilization same on both (avg Minefield was 34%, avg Chromium was 37%). Chromiummuch lighter on memory |
73 |
Animated Harmonograph |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
Drawing of complex patterns on Minefield would sometimes cause centre to "wobble" |
Redraw very slow on Minefield, sub-16 FPS. Chromium very fast and smooth. |
Both slow to pick up on mouse clicks, Firefox slightly slower |
Minefield slowly leaked memory (8MB over 10 minutes), CPU was pegged at 100% (Chromium's avg was 86%) |
74 |
jsCanvasBike |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
No difference found |
Minefield seemed a little less smooth when the bike suddenly changed speed. Smoothness generally went down as prolonged periods of speed went up. | Movements responded well to input. CPU pegged during long periods user input (such as holding down keys to accelerate or balance on one wheel) |
Minefield guzzled 160MB of memory over 4 minutes of constant driving, Chromium's would remain constant with short, periodic spikes. |
75 |
Venetianization |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
No problems. |
No problems. |
N/A |
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) |
76 |
Catch It! |
Steven Weerdenburg |
15/09/2010 |
Very quick on Firefox, great fun! |
Smooth redraw, felt like PC game |
Very responsive |
Sluggish and near-unplayable in Chromium. Less CPU in Minefield (4-12%, compared to 9-15% in Chromium) but more memory usage. |
77 |
Liquid Particles |
Steven Weerdenburg |
16/09/2010 |
Occasionally Minefield would not render more than 4 particle dots (should be around 100). |
Very choppy on Minefield when drawing both particles and the letters version |
Sometimes unresponsive for up to a second due to high CPU usage |
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 |
78 |
Harmony |
Steven Weerdenburg |
16/09/2010 |
Very smooth rendering |
The Graphics were very smooth. |
Very responsive during normal drawing. CPU spike when converting drawing to a PNG image |
Both Minefield and Chromium ran this well. Chromium used much more CPU on average than Minefield |
79 |
Realtime Video->ASCII Conversion |
Steven Weerdenburg |
16/09/2010 |
Rendering was great for both, ASCII characters don't take much to draw |
Has harder time converting at higher "resolutions" (ASCII character size decreases) than at higher scales (larger canvas) |
Became quite unresponsive over time, especially at higher resolutions and scales |
Chromium handled higher resolutions noticeably better than Minefield, though Minefield handled higher scales slightly better than Chromium. |
80 |
Internet Graffiti Board |
Steven Weerdenburg |
16/09/2010 |
Quick on both |
Smooth |
Input was very responsive. |
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. |