Komentowana treść: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
18.07.2018 16:21
[#3]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
Czy do takiej przeglądarki ma sens wymiana karty graficznej na HD 3850, czy na G4 to i tak guzik da?
18.07.2018 18:36
[#6]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
A wracając do tematu, u mnie na Pegasosie2 (po bardzo krótkim teście) allegro chodziło wolniej niż na starej przeglądarce bez JIT. No chyba, ze coś źle ustawiłem.
18.07.2018 19:27
[#8]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
No, chyba dziala (1.2GHz iBook G4 12"). Wlasnie pisze z niego ten komentarz. Nie wiem, jak zbenchmarkowac wersje JIT vs zwykla. Jakis link do odpowiedniego testu?
18.07.2018 19:43
[#10]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@recedent, post #9
Dzieki, wlasnie znalazlem i popedzilem test na JIT i nie-JIT:
OWB-JIT = 5867.1ms
OWB = 5198.9ms
Hmm. Czyli JIT jest generalnie wolniejszy (chociaz w niektorych testach szybszy) ? :/
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 18.07.2018 19:45:10 przez skipp
TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS
===============================================================================
** TOTAL **: 1.129x as fast 5867.1ms +/- 3.8% 5198.9ms +/- 0.2% significant
===============================================================================
3d: 1.45x as fast 811.9ms +/- 0.9% 560.9ms +/- 0.9% significant
cube: 1.27x as fast 200.3ms +/- 1.3% 158.0ms +/- 1.8% significant
morph: *1.018x as slow* 205.7ms +/- 0.5% 209.5ms +/- 1.0% significant
raytrace: 2.10x as fast 405.9ms +/- 1.2% 193.4ms +/- 1.6% significant
access: 1.98x as fast 1278.0ms +/- 17.0% 644.9ms +/- 0.4% significant
binary-trees: 1.40x as fast 93.3ms +/- 1.5% 66.6ms +/- 1.0% significant
fannkuch: 2.02x as fast 595.9ms +/- 19.1% 294.6ms +/- 0.5% significant
nbody: 2.89x as fast 550.8ms +/- 18.8% 190.3ms +/- 0.5% significant
nsieve: *2.46x as slow* 38.0ms +/- 1.5% 93.4ms +/- 0.9% significant
bitops: *1.81x as slow* 432.1ms +/- 0.5% 782.0ms +/- 0.3% significant
3bit-bits-in-byte: *2.88x as slow* 41.2ms +/- 1.4% 118.5ms +/- 1.2% significant
bits-in-byte: *4.19x as slow* 39.0ms +/- 0.9% 163.4ms +/- 0.7% significant
bitwise-and: *3.69x as slow* 62.4ms +/- 1.1% 230.1ms +/- 0.3% significant
nsieve-bits: 1.072x as fast 289.5ms +/- 0.5% 270.0ms +/- 0.7% significant
controlflow: *2.07x as slow* 28.9ms +/- 1.8% 59.8ms +/- 0.8% significant
recursive: *2.07x as slow* 28.9ms +/- 1.8% 59.8ms +/- 0.8% significant
crypto: 1.133x as fast 324.4ms +/- 1.7% 286.4ms +/- 1.4% significant
aes: 1.52x as fast 196.0ms +/- 1.3% 128.7ms +/- 1.9% significant
md5: *1.154x as slow* 72.1ms +/- 3.2% 83.2ms +/- 1.6% significant
sha1: *1.32x as slow* 56.3ms +/- 1.9% 74.5ms +/- 1.0% significant
date: 1.41x as fast 478.8ms +/- 0.5% 338.6ms +/- 1.3% significant
format-tofte: 1.48x as fast 240.3ms +/- 0.6% 162.6ms +/- 1.9% significant
format-xparb: 1.36x as fast 238.5ms +/- 0.5% 176.0ms +/- 1.2% significant
math: *1.38x as slow* 388.9ms +/- 0.4% 535.6ms +/- 1.0% significant
cordic: *2.31x as slow* 100.0ms +/- 0.5% 230.7ms +/- 2.1% significant
partial-sums: *1.089x as slow* 169.9ms +/- 0.6% 185.0ms +/- 0.4% significant
spectral-norm: ?? 119.0ms +/- 0.5% 119.9ms +/- 0.8% not conclusive: might be *1.008x as slow*
regexp: 1.003x as fast 897.2ms +/- 0.2% 894.8ms +/- 0.2% significant
dna: 1.003x as fast 897.2ms +/- 0.2% 894.8ms +/- 0.2% significant
string: 1.120x as fast 1226.9ms +/- 0.5% 1095.9ms +/- 0.7% significant
base64: *1.070x as slow* 159.3ms +/- 1.2% 170.4ms +/- 1.3% significant
fasta: 1.169x as fast 244.8ms +/- 1.0% 209.4ms +/- 0.7% significant
tagcloud: 1.21x as fast 282.2ms +/- 0.5% 232.5ms +/- 0.8% significant
unpack-code: 1.111x as fast 390.6ms +/- 0.9% 351.6ms +/- 0.9% significant
validate-input: 1.136x as fast 150.0ms +/- 0.6% 132.0ms +/- 2.0% significantOWB-JIT = 5867.1ms
OWB = 5198.9ms
Hmm. Czyli JIT jest generalnie wolniejszy (chociaz w niektorych testach szybszy) ? :/
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 18.07.2018 19:45:10 przez skipp
18.07.2018 21:48
[#14]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@skipp, post #10
Na G5 2,7 GHz Sunspider wygląda tak:
Wynik wolniejszy to oczywiście JIT. Zaraz zapuszczam Krakena.
TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS
===============================================================================
** TOTAL **: *1.140x as slow* 2642.2ms +/- 0.3% 3011.8ms +/- 0.3% significant
===============================================================================
3d: *1.41x as slow* 266.9ms +/- 1.6% 377.1ms +/- 1.3% significant
cube: *1.32x as slow* 71.6ms +/- 3.7% 94.5ms +/- 3.1% significant
morph: 1.111x as fast 101.9ms +/- 2.6% 91.7ms +/- 2.8% significant
raytrace: *2.04x as slow* 93.4ms +/- 3.1% 190.9ms +/- 1.5% significant
access: *1.74x as slow* 320.4ms +/- 1.2% 556.8ms +/- 1.1% significant
binary-trees: *1.46x as slow* 29.0ms +/- 1.2% 42.2ms +/- 7.1% significant
fannkuch: *1.66x as slow* 159.1ms +/- 2.5% 263.4ms +/- 1.7% significant
nbody: *2.40x as slow* 97.3ms +/- 0.6% 234.0ms +/- 1.6% significant
nsieve: 2.03x as fast 35.0ms +/- 5.9% 17.2ms +/- 2.6% significant
bitops: 1.37x as fast 348.7ms +/- 0.2% 254.5ms +/- 2.6% significant
3bit-bits-in-byte: 2.48x as fast 51.3ms +/- 1.3% 20.7ms +/- 4.3% significant
bits-in-byte: 2.31x as fast 70.9ms +/- 0.3% 30.7ms +/- 9.6% significant
bitwise-and: 2.66x as fast 110.7ms +/- 0.4% 41.6ms +/- 7.1% significant
nsieve-bits: *1.39x as slow* 115.8ms +/- 0.5% 161.5ms +/- 3.0% significant
controlflow: 2.07x as fast 25.9ms +/- 2.4% 12.5ms +/- 4.0% significant
recursive: 2.07x as fast 25.9ms +/- 2.4% 12.5ms +/- 4.0% significant
crypto: *1.27x as slow* 137.0ms +/- 2.9% 173.8ms +/- 2.5% significant
aes: *1.67x as slow* 61.6ms +/- 0.6% 103.0ms +/- 3.9% significant
md5: *1.024x as slow* 37.7ms +/- 1.3% 38.6ms +/- 1.0% significant
sha1: 1.171x as fast 37.7ms +/- 9.9% 32.2ms +/- 8.7% significant
date: *1.36x as slow* 163.9ms +/- 1.9% 223.6ms +/- 2.3% significant
format-tofte: *1.44x as slow* 73.6ms +/- 1.1% 105.9ms +/- 4.0% significant
format-xparb: *1.30x as slow* 90.3ms +/- 3.7% 117.7ms +/- 2.5% significant
math: 1.38x as fast 275.1ms +/- 1.3% 198.7ms +/- 2.2% significant
cordic: 2.12x as fast 122.8ms +/- 2.9% 57.9ms +/- 6.2% significant
partial-sums: - 88.2ms +/- 0.7% 86.7ms +/- 2.8%
spectral-norm: 1.185x as fast 64.1ms +/- 1.0% 54.1ms +/- 1.3% significant
regexp: *1.012x as slow* 566.9ms +/- 1.0% 573.8ms +/- 0.7% significant
dna: *1.012x as slow* 566.9ms +/- 1.0% 573.8ms +/- 0.7% significant
string: *1.193x as slow* 537.4ms +/- 0.8% 641.0ms +/- 0.8% significant
base64: *1.073x as slow* 70.8ms +/- 1.0% 76.0ms +/- 3.8% significant
fasta: *1.194x as slow* 100.3ms +/- 1.1% 119.8ms +/- 2.4% significant
tagcloud: *1.23x as slow* 123.9ms +/- 2.5% 152.3ms +/- 1.8% significant
unpack-code: *1.192x as slow* 182.8ms +/- 2.0% 217.9ms +/- 2.2% significant
validate-input: *1.26x as slow* 59.6ms +/- 4.1% 75.0ms +/- 2.9% significantWynik wolniejszy to oczywiście JIT. Zaraz zapuszczam Krakena.
18.07.2018 22:47
[#15]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@recedent, post #14
No i wyniki Krakena - znów w większości przypadków lepszy okazał się bez JITa:
TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS
====================================================================================
** TOTAL **: 1.64x as fast 171686.7ms +/- 0.6% 104582.2ms +/- 0.2% significant
====================================================================================
ai: 3.41x as fast 28755.7ms +/- 1.7% 8435.5ms +/- 0.5% significant
astar: 3.41x as fast 28755.7ms +/- 1.7% 8435.5ms +/- 0.5% significant
audio: 2.19x as fast 49715.7ms +/- 0.4% 22655.4ms +/- 0.2% significant
beat-detection: 2.04x as fast 10924.2ms +/- 0.3% 5360.1ms +/- 0.9% significant
dft: 1.68x as fast 11090.5ms +/- 2.0% 6585.7ms +/- 0.2% significant
fft: 2.04x as fast 10491.1ms +/- 0.4% 5137.9ms +/- 0.4% significant
oscillator: 3.09x as fast 17209.9ms +/- 0.3% 5571.7ms +/- 0.4% significant
imaging: 1.30x as fast 80741.4ms +/- 1.0% 62322.1ms +/- 0.3% significant
gaussian-blur: 1.32x as fast 60551.4ms +/- 1.1% 45908.9ms +/- 0.4% significant
darkroom: *1.133x as slow* 5725.7ms +/- 1.1% 6486.0ms +/- 0.6% significant
desaturate: 1.46x as fast 14464.3ms +/- 2.7% 9927.2ms +/- 0.4% significant
json: 1.092x as fast 816.0ms +/- 0.7% 747.0ms +/- 0.7% significant
parse-financial: 1.189x as fast 218.6ms +/- 0.4% 183.8ms +/- 1.6% significant
stringify-tinderbox: 1.061x as fast 597.4ms +/- 0.9% 563.2ms +/- 0.9% significant
stanford: 1.119x as fast 11657.9ms +/- 0.5% 10422.2ms +/- 0.6% significant
crypto-aes: 1.22x as fast 2682.3ms +/- 0.7% 2201.1ms +/- 1.1% significant
crypto-ccm: 1.21x as fast 1637.8ms +/- 1.2% 1350.1ms +/- 0.8% significant
crypto-pbkdf2: 1.085x as fast 5576.0ms +/- 0.8% 5137.6ms +/- 1.2% significant
crypto-sha256-iterative: 1.016x as fast 1761.8ms +/- 0.7% 1733.4ms +/- 0.9% significant 18.07.2018 22:56
[#16]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@recedent, post #15
Nie ma co płakać to level1. :) Miałem kiedyś eMaca i byłem bardzo zadowolony MorphOS zasuwał aż miło. Mam chęć powrócić do MOS i też się zastanawiam co by tu kupić. Z jednej strony laptop fajna rzecz ale małe są wolne a duże są za duże i pewnie się grzeją. Mac mini z 64 MB trudno znaleźć jak jest to drogo. I tak sobie myślę nad eMac 1,42 bo tanio można znaleźć i monitor z głowy albo nad G5.
Z G5 co polecanie ? Najszybszy jak rozumiem jest 2.7 ?
Z G5 co polecanie ? Najszybszy jak rozumiem jest 2.7 ?
18.07.2018 23:02
[#18]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@R-Tea, post #17
Wręcz przeciwnie powiedział aby cudów się nie spodziewać level1 jest na poziomie bez JIT.
Swoją drogą dziwne są te wyniki Sunspider. Przetestowałem na swoim kolnie i wychodzi że najszybszą przeglądarkę jest stare Safari ma wynik 2 razy lepszy niż Chrome, a FireFox jest pośrodku.
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 18.07.2018 23:04:01 przez Sventevith
Swoją drogą dziwne są te wyniki Sunspider. Przetestowałem na swoim kolnie i wychodzi że najszybszą przeglądarkę jest stare Safari ma wynik 2 razy lepszy niż Chrome, a FireFox jest pośrodku.
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 18.07.2018 23:04:01 przez Sventevith
19.07.2018 13:38
[#30]
Re: Pierwsza wersja OWB z JIT dla JavaScriptu dostępna
@recedent, post #28
No, ta dzisiejsza wersja to juz w koncu cos soba reprezentuje ;) 4661.8ms w SunSpider. TERAZ widac roznice :)
============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 4661.8ms +/- 0.1%
--------------------------------------------
3d: 558.9ms +/- 0.3%
cube: 183.5ms +/- 0.3%
morph: 202.8ms +/- 0.2%
raytrace: 172.6ms +/- 1.0%
access: 722.6ms +/- 0.2%
binary-trees: 29.5ms +/- 1.7%
fannkuch: 544.4ms +/- 0.2%
nbody: 110.4ms +/- 0.9%
nsieve: 38.3ms +/- 1.3%
bitops: 426.7ms +/- 0.2%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 41.0ms +/- 1.2%
bits-in-byte: 38.5ms +/- 1.0%
bitwise-and: 59.5ms +/- 1.4%
nsieve-bits: 287.7ms +/- 0.3%
controlflow: 28.9ms +/- 0.8%
recursive: 28.9ms +/- 0.8%
crypto: 299.7ms +/- 0.5%
aes: 188.4ms +/- 0.7%
md5: 61.7ms +/- 1.1%
sha1: 49.6ms +/- 1.0%
date: 334.8ms +/- 0.4%
format-tofte: 161.0ms +/- 0.5%
format-xparb: 173.8ms +/- 0.9%
math: 300.5ms +/- 0.3%
cordic: 97.8ms +/- 0.3%
partial-sums: 120.5ms +/- 0.4%
spectral-norm: 82.2ms +/- 0.4%
regexp: 1022.4ms +/- 0.1%
dna: 1022.4ms +/- 0.1%
string: 967.3ms +/- 0.3%
base64: 73.8ms +/- 0.8%
fasta: 208.0ms +/- 0.6%
tagcloud: 214.9ms +/- 0.8%
unpack-code: 379.3ms +/- 0.4%
validate-input: 91.3ms +/- 0.5%