[Galaxy Note II General] mat9v:
Hello All :)

In post #19 I have an update with tests of Beta versions of most popular browsers.

I've been reading yesterday a browser comparison between Chrome, Firefox, IE and Opera on both Windows and Linux platforms and I've decided to do something similar for Galaxy Note 2.

Now for some starting info:

Rom - Phoenix v13

Kernel - Perseus 36.3

OC - yes, 1.8Ghz, GPU untouched, a bit of undervolt also.

The system is fairly pure, default speedups as found in Phoenix installed. Rom is ODEXED

Not much apps installed.

Contenders: all currently downloaded from Playstore

- Samsung Browser

- Chrome 28.0.1500

- Firefox 22.0

- Opera 15.0.1162

- Maxthon 4.0.6.2000 B2844

They were all put under the following tests:

- HTML5 Test - Link

- HTML5 Benchmark - Link - Basically a 2D game benchmark.

- Octane - Link

- Browsermark 2.0 - Link

- Mazesolver (Microsoft) - Link

- Lawnmark (Microsoft) - Link

There is a story about that benchmark involving cheating as stated here but it does not affect my comparison.

- Peacekeeper - Link

- Sunspider 1.0 - Link

- V8 Benchmark (succeeded by Octane but still valid and does offer different results) - Link

- Dromaeo - Link - be carefull, it takes about 20 minutes or more to complete.

So off to results:

...........XXXXX................Stock browser.....Chrome (+%).........Firefox (+%).........Opera (+%)..........Maxthon (+%)......Dolphin (+%)........UC (+%)

HTML 5 Test.................434.....................410 (94%).............422 (97%).............428 (98.6%).........419 (96.5%).......419 (96%).............404 (93%)..........more is better

HTML Benchmark..........43......................1911 (4400%)........2731 (6351%).......2043 (4751%)......77 (179%).........107 (248%)............113 (263%)........more is better

Octane..........................2402...................2900 (120%)..........2622 (109%).........2783 (116%).......2375 (99%)........2451 (102%)..........2441 (101.6%).....more is better

Browsemark 2.0............2525...................2427 (96%)............2306 (91%)...........2897 (115%).......2123 (84%)........1956 (77%)............1963 (78%)..........more is better

Mazesolver (20)............1.9......................4.9 (257%)..............6 (315%)..............6.3 (331%)..........1.6 (84%)...........2 (105%).................1.9 (100%)........less is better

Mazesolver (30)............9.6......................20 (208%)..............91 (948%)............25 (260%)...........4.9 (51%)...........5,6 (58%).................5,9 (61%)..........less is better

Mazesolver (40)............30.......................101 (336%)............112 (373%)..........109 (363%).........28 (93%)............29 (97%)..................31 (103%)........less is better

Lawnmark.....................538......................873 (162%)............1071 (199%)........679 (126%).........515 (96%)...........not_finished *2............not_finished *3..........less is better

Peacekeeper ...............873......................891 (102%)............605 (69%) *1........891 (102%).........927 (106%).........929 (106%)............857 (98%)..........more is better

Sunspider.....................1041....................812 (78%)..............863 (83%)............806 (77%)...........1160 (111%)........1080 (103.7%).......1050 (101%)........less is better

V8 Benchmark..............2690....................3101 (115%)..........2677 (99.5%).......3191 (119%)........2546 (94.6%)......2597 (96%)............2553 (95%)..........more is better

Dromaeo.......................167.15.................179.92 (107.6%)....146.42 (87.6%)....186.03 (111%).....168.6 (100.8%)...161.94 (97%).........164,44 (98%)..........more is better

*1 - this result is a strange one since Firefox is the only browser that allowed almost all videos to play, there were some problems with buffering so the videos skipped some but they worked, not one other browser did. So I don't understand why the score is so low, maybe other parts were bad.

*2 and *3 - in both cases browsers simply closed without any error sometime after starting benchmark (less than 3 minutes), consecutive tries resulted in closing few seconds after starting benchmark. Both browsers had to be fully restarted (as in killed in apps manager or by phone restart)

HTML5 test is only a measure of how well browsers conform to HTML standard, somewhat like old ACID3 test.

Now, HTML5 Benchmark on stock and Maxthon were a slideshow, <2 fps and it took more than 30 minutes to complete. I have no idea why as it is a simple 2D platform game and other browsers run quite well even up to 60 fps in case of Firefox.

Mazesolver had to be run more than 10 times for every settings and median calculated because tests were prone to big variations. As such I would mark that test as unreliable. Lawnmark, despite being unfairly skewed for IE 10/11 is an equal oportunity test for other browsers, so the results "stay"

To compare browsers I will count Octane, Browsermark, Peacekeeper, Sunspider, V8 and Dromaeo benchmarks.

Results:

Chrome is on average 10,43% faster than Stock Browser

Firefox is on average 4.48% slower than Stock Browser

Opera is on average 14,33% faster than Stock Browser

Maxthon is on average 4.43% slower than Stock Browser

Dolphin is on average 4.23% slower than Stock Browser

UC Browser is on average 5.06% slower than Stock Browser

And the Winner is ....... Opera :)

Now all those results should also be counted against power consumption and here is where things change a lot. I started those test with full battery and all the browsers did the same amount of work actually doing those tests. The problem is that while Chrome, Stock, Maxthon and Firefox required roughly the same amount of power, Opera used more than twice that. I'm attaching screenshots of those results.

View attachment 2133846 View attachment 2133847 View attachment 2133848 View attachment 2133849View attachment 2133855 View attachment 2133856 View attachment 2133857 View attachment 2133858

On other topic, I think almost 6 hours of screen on time with almost all that time CPU was working full tilt and screen was [MENTION=1412615]100%[/MENTION] is a great result. There were only short times when I left the phone to cool off, mostly with screen on but not working hard :)

Any comments or questions, just ask :)

Update for Naked Browser - the scores were in order: 2470 (103%), 2019 (80%), 824 (94%), 1087 (104.5%), 2729 (101.4%) and 168.69 (101%)

Total score for it: Naked Browser is on average 4.18% slower than Stock Browser

Next Boat Browser - the scores were in order: 2483 (103%), 2109 (83%), 850 (97%), 909 (87%), 2479 (92%), 165.98 (99%)

Total score for it: Boat Browser is on average 2.16% slower than Stock Browser

ONE Browser - the scores were in order: 2342 (97.5%), 2097 (83%), 680 (78%),1801 (173%), 1280 (47.5%), 166.62 (99.7%)

Total score for it: ONE Browser is on average 27.88% slower than Stock Browser

From all those scores of different browsers it's apparent that some of the use a common rendering engine (Firefox, Maxthon, Dolphin, UC and Naked and probably Boat too) because their results are within 1% of each other while Samsung, Opera and Chrome are much different. So between those above you can choose based on features set that they have because performance is about equal.

If you are interested in modern games based on HTML5 code, Firefox and One browsers are the way to go with Chrome and Opera about 30% slower. HTML5 Benchmark which I did not include in final score (but tested all browsers with) shows great disparity between browsers.

The scores:

Stock : 43 points

Chrome : 1911 points

Firefox : 2622 points

Opera : 2043 points

Maxthon : 77 points

Dolphin : 107 points

Naked : 96 points

UC : 113 points

Boat : 78 points

ONE : 3041 points

I do not understand how it's possible to get a 30 times difference in modern times in a fairly important category but there you have it. I hope it's not similar to Microsoft's Lawnmark benchmark that before every iteration followed (as is standard for some reason) 4ms pause while IE 10 and 11 allowed for "no pause" policy. The results - IE 10/11 finished in 15 seconds, other browsers took upwards of 10 minutes. The funny thing is, some Chrome addicts took the benchmark code and set a level playing field by removing the wait time for every browser, and lo and behold, IE was 2 times slower than Firefox and 3 times slower than Opera with Chrome somewhere in the middle.

It gives some thoughts as in both cases (HTML5 benchmark and Lawnmark) after benchmark run, the phone / cpu is completely cool. I do not at the moment have any monitoring app installed, but CoolTool would be easy to use to verify that.

In light of recent "strange" benchmark results of newer Intel chips that happend to be Intel compiler using a flaw in Antutu benchmark code all benchmark results can be suspected.

You can argue that compiler optimisations are the lifeblood of fast computing, but when you optimize code by hand to get best score in a benchmark, it's not clean fight. Because no other app is going to have the same optimizations so the benchmark result is misleading to the real life performance of the hardware. All that on top of usefullness/uselessness of benchmarks in the whole :)