Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Opera 9 Fastese JavaScript

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Lawman

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 8:46:27 AM8/2/06
to
A test of alternative browsers showed that Opera 9 was
over 3.5 times faster running a Javascript test suite...

http://celtickane.com/projects/jsspeed.php

--
H.L.Law

OmegaJunior

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 9:13:38 AM8/2/06
to

This I found in my own web applications as well. Some pages require a
build-up of javascripted data, and we can see that Opera9 loads them in
about 3 seconds while MSIE7b3 took 22 seconds... for the same
functionality.

I also recognised that MSIE is quite sensitive to script optimisation. I
managed to rewrite the code I used and bring the loading time down to 7
seconds, 3 times faster. Opera9 would still load it in 3 seconds, more
than twice as fast.

One of the optimisations: MSIE does not like dom traversal, so use cached
objects wherever suitable.

--
Yours,
ΩJr

Using Opera 9.01 build 8543 on Windows 2003 Server

Eik

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 9:17:33 AM8/2/06
to

Nice test. You may also like to see how earlier versions fared on DOM
manipulation:

http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html

Lee Harvey

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 9:47:18 AM8/2/06
to

Yep, Opera does pretty well here too:

http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/benchjs.html


Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 1:00:15 AM8/3/06
to
"Lawman" <law...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98134F14725...@140.99.99.130...

>A test of alternative browsers showed that Opera 9 was
> over 3.5 times faster running a Javascript test suite...
>
> http://celtickane.com/projects/jsspeed.php

On my system, Firefox 1.5.0.6 does finish in the 2000-2100 range (not too
far off from the figures on the site), but Opera 9.01 side-by-side is
nowhere near 442. Instead, it ranges between 1700 and 2000. If our Firefoxes
finish comparably, why don't our Operas?

Anyone else not seeing a dramatic difference on their system?


Eik

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 7:48:10 AM8/3/06
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:00:15 +0100, Milhouse Van Houten
<bt...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>> http://celtickane.com/projects/jsspeed.php

> Anyone else not seeing a dramatic difference on their system?

I ran it a few times and got between 420 and 441.

Firefox gave 1913-2123. Not only is it slower (never mind benchmarks, the
wait in FF felt like a CGI form submission whereas Opera felt responsive
like an application) but there seems to be much more fluctuation in FF. It
varies by over 2 seconds but there's nothing much going on in the
background on this machine.

IE6 gave 1582-1612.

IE5.0 gave 841-861 (and pretty consistently gave 841, with only a couple
of 861s and only one 841 inbetween) but it appears it didn't run the
array, string and AJAX functions.

This is on XPSP2 with a 3Ghz P4 and 0.5GB RAM.

Lee Harvey

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 9:20:16 AM8/3/06
to

I'm consistently getting 406ms w/ 9.01 on my Celeron 1.8GHz system w/ 1GB
RAM and WinXP SP2. Whereas, FF consistently gives me between 1475ms and
1582ms on the same system.

Below are my results for each particular test in Opera 9.01:

Try/Catch with errors 16
Layer movement 47
Random number engine 46
Math engine 79
DOM speed 46
Array functions 63
String functions 78
Ajax declaration 31
-----------------------
Total Duration 406 ms

So, which of these tests are skewed for your Opera results? Assuming one or
more results are significantly larger than the others.

Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 10:09:05 AM8/3/06
to
"Lee Harvey" <leeh...@grassyknoll.com> wrote in message
news:easss6$69q$1...@news.opera.com...

>
> So, which of these tests are skewed for your Opera results? Assuming one
> or more results are significantly larger than the others.

I'd love to tell you, but the site has been knocked offline due to bandwidth
usage. I'll try it again later.


Eik

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 11:30:57 AM8/3/06
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:09:05 +0100, Milhouse Van Houten
<bt...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> the site has been knocked offline due to bandwidth usage.

Seems there's more Opera users than some might think ;-)

Lee Harvey

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 12:50:25 PM8/3/06
to

I'm leaning more towards the Firefox DoS theory... ;-)


Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 1:16:30 PM8/3/06
to
"Lee Harvey" <leeh...@grassyknoll.com> wrote in message
news:easss6$69q$1...@news.opera.com...
>>
>> On my system, Firefox 1.5.0.6 does finish in the 2000-2100 range (not too
>> far off from the figures on the site), but Opera 9.01 side-by-side is
>> nowhere near 442. Instead, it ranges between 1700 and 2000. If our
>> Firefoxes finish comparably, why don't our Operas?
>>
>> Anyone else not seeing a dramatic difference on their system?
>
> I'm consistently getting 406ms w/ 9.01 on my Celeron 1.8GHz system w/ 1GB
> RAM and WinXP SP2. Whereas, FF consistently gives me between 1475ms and
> 1582ms on the same system.
>
> So, which of these tests are skewed for your Opera results? Assuming one
> or more results are significantly larger than the others.

String functions kills it for me every time. Perhaps it doesn't like to be
run with a lot of tabs open, which I have at the moment? If so, I don't get
why.

Try/Catch with errors 78
Layer movement 63
Random number engine 62
Math engine 110
DOM speed 47
Array functions 62
String functions 1484
Ajax declaration 32
Total Duration 1938 ms


Matthew Winn

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 3:40:20 PM8/3/06
to
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:16:30 -0700, Milhouse Van Houten <bt...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> String functions kills it for me every time. Perhaps it doesn't like to be
> run with a lot of tabs open, which I have at the moment? If so, I don't get
> why.
>
> Try/Catch with errors 78
> Layer movement 63
> Random number engine 62
> Math engine 110
> DOM speed 47
> Array functions 62
> String functions 1484
> Ajax declaration 32
> Total Duration 1938 ms

I opened 28 empty tabs and found that the time for string functions
roughly doubled, so you may be on to something. Perhaps it's a memory
allocation issue: string operations are the sort of operations that
are likely to be allocating and freeing small blocks of memory, and
I suspect that the more blocks of memory Opera is dealing with the
slower such operations become.

It might be worth comparing the speed of an Opera that has been
running for several hours of active use with one that has just been
started.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]

Remco Lanting

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 6:18:09 PM8/3/06
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:40:20 +0200, Matthew Winn <o*@matthewwinn.me.urk>
wrote:

> I opened 28 empty tabs and found that the time for string functions
> roughly doubled, so you may be on to something. Perhaps it's a memory
> allocation issue: string operations are the sort of operations that
> are likely to be allocating and freeing small blocks of memory, and
> I suspect that the more blocks of memory Opera is dealing with the
> slower such operations become.
>
> It might be worth comparing the speed of an Opera that has been
> running for several hours of active use with one that has just been
> started.

I have had Opera running for almost 11 hours and these are the results of
my test:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 47
Random number engine 94
Math engine 109
DOM speed 47
Array functions 47
String functions 94
Ajax declaration 31
Total Duration 484 ms

I then opened up 20 extra blank tabs, next to my three irc windows, the
news thread and this message and the speeds didn't change.

Remco

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+
Mem: 512 MB
Opera 9.01 build 8552

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Aug 3, 2006, 7:29:05 PM8/3/06
to
"Remco Lanting" <remco....@no.spam.at.gmail.please.com> wrote in message
news:op.tdqawlbksiq8n1@whoeier...

>
> I then opened up 20 extra blank tabs, next to my three irc windows, the
> news thread and this message and the speeds didn't change.

Try opening up real sites, some of which (law of averages) should be using
Javascript, and see if it changes dramatically. If it doesn't, then I'm
lost. If it does, what does that say for Opera's Javascript after all?


Message has been deleted

Remco Lanting

unread,
Aug 4, 2006, 6:22:20 AM8/4/06
to

Same 5 windows when running for about an hour:

Try/Catch with errors 0
Layer movement 47
Random number engine 78
Math engine 78


DOM speed 47
Array functions 47

String functions 47
Ajax declaration 15
Total Duration 359 ms

Then, when digg.com (heavily dependant on javascript) is opened up:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 63
Random number engine 78
Math engine 63
DOM speed 46
Array functions 47
String functions 125
Ajax declaration 16
Total Duration 453 ms

And with 10 digg.com windows:

Try/Catch with errors 125
Layer movement 187
Random number engine 79
Math engine 78
DOM speed 62
Array functions 47
String functions 563
Ajax declaration 46
Total Duration 1187 ms

First test after closing the 10 digg.com windows:

Try/Catch with errors 156
Layer movement 172
Random number engine 47
Math engine 93
DOM speed 63
Array functions 47
String functions 265
Ajax declaration 47
Total Duration 890 ms

Second test after closing the 10 digg.com windows:

Try/Catch with errors 16
Layer movement 46
Random number engine 79
Math engine 62


DOM speed 47
Array functions 47

String functions 62
Ajax declaration 16
Total Duration 375 ms

I guess you're on to something. If I have the time for it, I may also do
the test in IE and Firefox.

Remco

Remco Lanting

unread,
Aug 4, 2006, 10:42:17 AM8/4/06
to
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:22:20 +0200, Remco Lanting
<remco....@no.spam.at.gmail.please.com> wrote:

> I guess you're on to something. If I have the time for it, I may also do
> the test in IE and Firefox.

In IE 6, it holds steady at about 1200 ms with and without 10 digg windows.

In Firefox, these are the numbers:

Without any other tabs:

Try/Catch with errors 141
Layer movement 234
Random number engine 266
Math engine 281
DOM speed 234
Array functions 141
String functions 16
Ajax declaration 140
Total Duration 1453 ms

With 1 digg.com tab:

Try/Catch with errors 406
Layer movement 250
Random number engine 266
Math engine 297
DOM speed 250
Array functions 437
String functions 94
Ajax declaration 156
Total Duration 2156 ms

With 10 digg.com tabs:

Try/Catch with errors 516
Layer movement 250
Random number engine 282
Math engine 297
DOM speed 234
Array functions 562
String functions 407
Ajax declaration 187
Total Duration 2735 ms

Good luck interpreting all this.

Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Aug 4, 2006, 1:45:43 PM8/4/06
to
"Remco Lanting" <remco....@no.spam.at.gmail.please.com> wrote in message
news:op.tdrkgrj9siq8n1@whoeier...

>
> Good luck interpreting all this.

It's interesting that it never really shot up for you in Opera though. You
should have been able to hit 2000 easily with all that going on.

I just tried it in Virtual PC, which is a barren install of XP SP2 along
with a brand-new 9.01, no other tabs, and I get these still-high numbers (or
pretty close) every time:

Try/Catch with errors 10
Layer movement 170
Random number engine 101
Math engine 140
DOM speed 70
Array functions 90
String functions 210
Ajax declaration 70
Total Duration 861 ms

How much cleaner could it possibly be?! But perhaps that's because it's in
VPC. Is this test highly memory or CPU dependent? If so, I guess that
explains VPC.

So I closed all my tabs in my main 9.01 Opera (outside of VPC: machine 3GHz
P4 with 2GB RAM), and without restarting it got this:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 141
Random number engine 78
Math engine 125
DOM speed 63
Array functions 62
String functions 672
Ajax declaration 16
Total Duration 1172 ms

Ran it again, got this (seriously):

Try/Catch with errors 0
Layer movement 47

Random number engine 93
Math engine 110
DOM speed 62
Array functions 63
String functions 93
Ajax declaration 32
Total Duration 500 ms

Closed Opera, ran it again, and then got this:

Try/Catch with errors 15
Layer movement 63

Random number engine 94
Math engine 109
DOM speed 47
Array functions 78
String functions 156
Ajax declaration 47
Total Duration 609 ms

Ran it again, got this:

Try/Catch with errors 16
Layer movement 78
Random number engine 78
Math engine 109
DOM speed 63
Array functions 62
String functions 172
Ajax declaration 47
Total Duration 625 ms

Opened all my tabs (15-20) again and saw it go from 1437 to 1640 to 1125 to
1250 to 1094.

Perhaps this test is severely affected by what else you have running. I
didn't try closing down every last thing, including tray apps, but perhaps
if I did I'd get good numbers. Not that I'd ever do that in real life.

In summary, I think this test is whacked.

Remco Lanting

unread,
Aug 4, 2006, 2:05:30 PM8/4/06
to
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:45:43 +0200, Milhouse Van Houten
<bt...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> "Remco Lanting" <remco....@no.spam.at.gmail.please.com> wrote in
> message
> news:op.tdrkgrj9siq8n1@whoeier...
>>
>> Good luck interpreting all this.
>
> It's interesting that it never really shot up for you in Opera though.
> You
> should have been able to hit 2000 easily with all that going on.

My Opera hit the 2000 mark with 20 digg.com windows open.

> How much cleaner could it possibly be?! But perhaps that's because it's
> in
> VPC. Is this test highly memory or CPU dependent? If so, I guess that
> explains VPC.

When I run the test, I hear the CPU fan speed up. Taskmanager tells me the
CPU is used 100% for a short period.

> In summary, I think this test is whacked.

I'll put it a bit nicer: I think the test is too dependant on outside
factors to get good values to compare different browsers (on the same pc)
with eachother.

0 new messages