1
edit
Changes
Created page with '==Test Results (Steven Weerdenburg)== <!-- Page template extended from Brian Law's results --> '''Go back to lab page''' === Har…'
==Test Results (Steven Weerdenburg)==
<!-- Page template extended from Brian Law's results -->
[[Firefox_Performance_Testing_Lab_Fall_2010 | '''Go back to lab page''']]
=== Hardware Info ===
<table border='1' cellpadding='1' cellspacing='0'>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter Description</td>
<td>NVIDIA GeForce 9300 GE</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Vendor ID</td>
<td>10de</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Device ID</td>
<td>06e0</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter RAM</td>
<td>256</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter Drivers</td>
<td>nvd3dum nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Driver Version</td>
<td>8.17.12.5896</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Driver Date</td>
<td>7-9-2010</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Direct2D Enabled</td>
<td>true</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>DirectWrite Enabled</td>
<td>true</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>GPU Accelerated Windows</td>
<td>1/1 Direct3D 9</td>
<tr>
<table>
=== Minefield Build ===
*Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0b7pre) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/4.0b7pre
=== Chromium Build ===
*Chromium 7.0.525.0 (59405)
=== Results ===
[http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S4I3GQCR Perfmon Results]
<table border='1' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0'>
<tr>
<th>Test No.</th>
<th>Test Name</th>
<th>Tester</th>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Speed</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Smoothness</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Responsiveness</th>
<th>Notes and other Details</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>71</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>72</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>73</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>74</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>75</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>76</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>77</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>78</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>79</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>80</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>
<!-- Page template extended from Brian Law's results -->
[[Firefox_Performance_Testing_Lab_Fall_2010 | '''Go back to lab page''']]
=== Hardware Info ===
<table border='1' cellpadding='1' cellspacing='0'>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter Description</td>
<td>NVIDIA GeForce 9300 GE</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Vendor ID</td>
<td>10de</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Device ID</td>
<td>06e0</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter RAM</td>
<td>256</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Adapter Drivers</td>
<td>nvd3dum nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Driver Version</td>
<td>8.17.12.5896</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Driver Date</td>
<td>7-9-2010</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>Direct2D Enabled</td>
<td>true</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>DirectWrite Enabled</td>
<td>true</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor='lightblue'>GPU Accelerated Windows</td>
<td>1/1 Direct3D 9</td>
<tr>
<table>
=== Minefield Build ===
*Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0b7pre) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/4.0b7pre
=== Chromium Build ===
*Chromium 7.0.525.0 (59405)
=== Results ===
[http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S4I3GQCR Perfmon Results]
<table border='1' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0'>
<tr>
<th>Test No.</th>
<th>Test Name</th>
<th>Tester</th>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Speed</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Smoothness</th>
<th>Firefox Performance - Responsiveness</th>
<th>Notes and other Details</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>71</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>72</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>73</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>74</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>75</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>76</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>77</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>78</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>79</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>80</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>
