Just for clarification, these numbers are in milliseconds, so smaller is better.

This is as opposed to some other benchmarks which report N operations per second, where larger is better.

A chart of your data with the IE outlier excluded: chart

Also, the IE strings data seems a bit strange. In your chart it seems an order of magnitude faster than it does in the data. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

It would be nice if you included results for the new TraceMonkey JavaScript VM that is present in the latest Firefox nightlies. It should be quite comparable to the V8 VM found in Chrome.

Just grab a nightly from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-tracemonkey/ , enable the VM in about:config (search for "jit"), restart Firefox and do the benchmark.

i'm willing to try it out just to see if it works more efficiently than FireFox... if it's faster than Firefox and isn't IE, then i'll use it

Having nothing better to do tonight, I decided to run my own series of tests using sunspider to determine which browser was the fastest on MY computer -- a Dell Q6600 with 6 gig of Ram -- using Vista 64.

Firefox 3.1b1pre : 1301 ms
Chrome .2.149.29 : 1595 ms
IE 7 : 22,513 ms
Opera 9.52 : 3979 ms
Safari 3.1.2 : 3547 ms

I was rather suprised at IE's time. I knew it was going to be the slowest but not by that big of a margin.

I added firefox 3.1 to these stats and the resulting charts + sheets can be found on http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmYpIvbY8QX-8WEutszwwHA

PS. To the author of this site, seriously add a better spam filter

A month later and Chrome usage is way down. People tried it, liked it (generally), then went back to their usual browser. Chrome IS a good browser, but it's too bare bones at the moment - when you see all the Firefox plugins available (arguably THE browser that is competing with Chrome - IE users just don't switch no matter what!).

Wow, I didn't realize that IE was that ridiculously slow. I'm also pretty surprised that Opera performed so poorly, guess I'll give up on Opera...again.
But still, IE being behind by that large of a margin is absurd. I knew that IE was slow, but not that slow. Frankly, I would think that Microsoft would see this issue and at least make an attempt to boost IE's speed, but guess not, Microsoft is going downhill.

Yeah...about IE to browse porn, maybe you should bring it up somewhere else? Just hinting...

Would it be a lot of effort to include Konqueror/KHTML (in its 4.1 version with overhauled bytecode-compiling KJS engine) in the benchmarks?

I am an IE user who do switch to Firefox! So I dont know what you are trying to say

really helped us out when we came down from Memphis to take in some Nola hospitality and spirits for a bachelorette party weekend by outfitting us with the perfect article of clothing to capture the experience: this shirt. You even featured my girl

I should probably set up rel="nofollow" some time and warn readers about it. This is the kind of spam that Mollom has a hard time to deal with.

On the topic of your sohbet benchmarks, I find it fun to see that you did what I did to the IE results for strings

I should probably set up rel="nofollow" some time and warn readers about it. This is the kind of spam that Mollom has a hard time to deal with. I can you.

thanks for great article..klip, lida diyet zayıflama r10seoogle, hadise, şahan gökbakar, klip izle, mp3 dinle

wholesale jewelry,wholesale fashion jewelry,handmade jewelry,costume jewelry,jewelry wholesale

that'cool.

know IE 7 is slow but I didn’t knew that it was that much slow. I use firefox. The result for chrome is better. I must try it, if it works faster in my computer then firefox is out.

know IE 7 is slow but I didn’t knew that it was that much slow. I use firefox. The result for chrome is better. I must try it, if it works faster in my computer then firefox is out.