Wumpus 12, Windmill 0.
Wumpus by decision.
Isn’t the story here that Macbooks are slower than iPhones? Like, half the speed on their native browser? That’s fucked up, right?
Still waiting for the first brave Android user to post a result.
As someone with a limited understanding of English used to say to me before an online Total Annihilation match… WHAT MATTER… YOU SCARE?
It’s currently running on my phone, as a curiosity, but I’m pretty sure that the constant keyboard popup/hide makes whatever the final number is basically useless as a measure of javascript performance.
Native app performance.
Yeah, Android Chrome Beta fixes the keyboard issue, so try that if it bugs you.
Chrome Beta is not very risky, Chrome Canary is what you don’t want to be running.
A number of people pointed out online that no Android device (thanks, Qualcomm-bama) has any level 3 cache, while Apple SoCs are lousy with the shit, even ye olde iPhone 6 has like 4 MB of L3 cache. The V8 guys think this may be a factor, as they said V8 is extremely cache sensitive and not designed to handle low cache at all.
This would explain why Chrome/x86, which is literally the same V8 engine as Chrome/Android, is doing well.
N5X with keyboard popping up: 20. i5-2500k desktop@4ghz: 40. >.>
Galaxy Note 4 with Chrome:
Score equal to the length of wumpus’s wang in millimeters. I’ll let him decide to divulge the final score!
This is some bad, bad shit for everyone. Android is literally holding the web back. They were competitive-ish in 2012-2013 with the iPhone 4s/5, and It’d be fine if they had a cadence of reasonable performance improvements from 2014-on but… uh… they delivered… the opposite of that.
(This is mostly Qualcomm sucking, not Android per se, but that is another open question: why is the entire Android “oh yay open source OS that runs on anything” only running on craptacular Qualcomm SoCs??)
The only hope is that the V8 team did promise serious improvement (read the blog entries I linked, that guy is the head of the v8 team) in 2017, possibly as much as 2x. And they’ll need 2x to even be remotely competitive. At least they are publicizing the problem with the new benchmark.
Either you meant 2017 or this is a seriously sick burn.
Edit: Ok, you fixed it, phew!
iPhone 7+ – 110
2016 MacBook Pro 13" (w/ Touchbar) Safari – 118
2016 MacBook Pro 13" (w/ Touchbar) Chrome – 107
Qualcomm SD650, a 2016 hexa-core device with two A72 cores and four A53s; universally described as a very solid mid-range Android SoC. 27.91 on Chrome Beta, no other apps running.
Not great, Bob.
~~
For what it’s worth, I owned an iPhone 6 and the abovementioned SD650 device, and I find multitasking much more enjoyable on the 650, probably because the 6 was the last IOS device to ship with 1GB of RAM (and the Android phone I have comes with 3). I honestly didn’t notice much of a speed difference between the two, but when streaming/transcoding video from the NAS, the iPhone was much better.
Yeah the 2GB transition was absolutely clutch on iOS. You want 6s or later, or iPad Air 2 or later. The only other iOS device with more memory is the large iPad Pro which has 4GB.
Holding the web back from what? Opening a todo list over and over again?
The thing is, Wumpus, that every day I stare at web pages loading on my phone and wish my mobile data connection were faster or more reliable. But I’ve never looked at a web page on my phone and wished my phone could process it faster. When people start visiting those kinds of websites, then people will want faster phones. Until then, you are putting the cart before the horse. It’s like pointing out that we could make phones with even higher DPI screens. Yes, we could, but that doesn’t mean we should.
I know, I know, 640kb should be enough for everyone. I am an asshole for even considering the prospect of anything better than what we have today, or that it should possibly be quite a bit better than it is already.
I will learn to take my beatings and love the status quo of Qualcomm, which is amazing. We should be honored to have this glorious silicon in our tiny computers. I am honored.
640K was enough for everyone, until someone built an application that suffered under that limit. Then it wasn’t enough any more.
So, build us a reason to demand faster phones. If it’s a good enough reason, people will demand faster phones. Otherwise, why bother?
Wumpus: “My car does 0-60 in 3 seconds flat.”
Everyone: “That’s cool. Mine’s not that fast, but most of the time I’m either already at cruising speed or stuck behind another car anyway so I get to my destination in around the same total time. And I really like my ample legroom, lower price, cargo space, better gas mileage, built-in GPS, and customizable dashboard, none of which are offered on yours.”
Wumpus: “Why do you refuse to believe that mine is faster!? Look at these benchmarks! Why aren’t you marching on Detroit with torches and pitchforks?! Enjoy your Model T, losers!”
From what? Unoptimised, resource hog websites? Good. I’m a web developer and I’m glad the focus should be on not overloading your site with frameworks, on running developer tools to ensure consistently high frame rates on various devices and network quality levels. I’m all for Progressive Web Apps. Android certainly doesn’t hold us back from that. But don’t tell me the current performance level on phones is inadequate for web needs. I don’t buy that.
Glad you’ve got a fast phone though. Yay you.
Wendelius
The point is that highlighting this gets the V8 people at Google to fix it. Thus, you – and everyone else with an Android phone – will magically have a faster phone for browsing the modern web sometime in 2017.
You’re fuckin’ welcome, by the way.
(Qualcomm sucking balls I can’t fix, but Google is being shamed into making their own smartphone CPUs.)
I think websites are holding the web back.
On my Galaxy S6 the speed test freezes after the second test of the 420. So I guess 0?
Turns out you are on to something, I don’t know how I ever noticed that my phone can not load web pages at all! This benchmark sure seems without flaw.