Talk:Browser speed test

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Browser speed test article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Nathanielduke33 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Principled Technologies on behalf of WebXPRT.

Article needs some serious fixing

There are many serious problems with this article:

No inline citations
No mention of testing the speed of browsers at loading pages or starting up
The page states that Acid3 does not test speed, but it does

It looks like this page is one person's opinion about what browser speed tests are, and it contains many obvious inaccuracies. Perhaps the page should be scrapped? Or can it be salvaged? -- Schapel (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page should more accurately be called "Browser performance test" or "Web browser performance benchmarks".
Acid3 does have a performance component, as you've noted.
None of the platform-specific tests are in fact platform-specific, and can be used in any capable browser. There's an unnecessary distinction here between benchmarks created by browser vendors and those created by third parties.
No mention of Dromaeo.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "During Developer Summit in June 2012, Microsoft demonstrated Internet Explorer Mobile 10 out-performing the Galaxy S III, HTC One S, and iPhone 4S on iOS 6 Beta." - which apparently is taken directly from a *slide* in referenced link. The comparison makes no sense: it doesn't mention what device or even CPU MSIE ran on and looks more like marketing than fact, which has no place on Wikipedia. (as of 28 June 2012)

I agree. I removed the comparison of a browser (on unspecified phone) to phone models (with unspecified browsers) with a non WP:RS / primary per talk page concerns - presumably the stock browsers but without being explicit this is bogus. This is also outdated with Chrome available on Android, so the comparison is more of a (unspecified phone/unspecified browser) comparison which is bogus in itself, but more so on a browser speed test article. I saved here:

" During Developer Summit in June 2012, Microsoft demonstrated Internet Explorer Mobile 10 out-performing the Galaxy S III, HTC One S, and iPhone 4S on iOS 6 Beta.^[1]" Widefox; talk 12:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of first paragraph makes no sense. Turkeyphan^t 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sunspider and Peacekeeper have been deprecated and are now unsupported.

The Sunspider page tells you to use JetStream instead.
The Peacekeeper page just tells you that it is now unsupported.
I didn't even bother to check to see if any of the other benchmarks were still active.

Bradknowles (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Windows Phone 8: Internet Explorer 10 Detailed

This better than that?

I really think that sentences like "This browser in july 2011 performed 1.7 times better than that other browser" should be removed from the text of ALL the page. This is either a generic page on the methodology and algorithms used for testing, so no results at all should be included, or it could become a place where the scoring of all different browsers for the various tests are listed (and that's a too heavy work to do, in my opinion), but "this is better than that" is really just SPAM! I removed them myself (one on Chrome and one on ie10).

--Francesco

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Browser speed test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514205704/http://test262.ecmascript.org/ to http://test262.ecmascript.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C368182%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition of WebXPRT

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per MOS:LAYOUTEL.

Hello. I am proposing the addition of a short amount of text about the WebXPRT benchmark at the bottom of the General tests section, below the Basemark Web 3.0 entry.

COI disclosure: I am an employee of Principled Technologies, the company that distributes WebXPRT (which is free to use and contains no ads or paid add-ons). This information is straightforward, I don’t anticipate it being controversial, and it would provide useful information for readers interested in the subject. Below, I included the proposed addition, and below that, more general information about the test for your reference. Thanks for your time.

Extended content

Suggested information to be added:

WebXPRT

WebXPRT is a cross-platform browser benchmark that runs HTML5- and JavaScript-based workloads.^[1] The benchmark provides scores for six individual workloads, as well as an overall score.^[2] WebXPRT is published by the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, which is administered by Principled Technologies, and is one of the BenchmarkXPRT benchmarks. WebXPRT 3 is the most current version of WebXPRT.^[3]

Explanation for the proposed addition:

WebXPRT is a free, cross-platform browser benchmark published by the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, which is administered by Principled Technologies. The test contains six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workload scenarios, and provides scores for each workload scenario, as well as an overall score.

WebXPRT has been run more than 429,000 times by technology manufacturers, developers, vendors, and tech-review websites like AnandTech and Notebookcheck.net.

A Google search for “WebXPRT” during any time period over the last several years will likely return multiple references in popular tech review articles. To help with confirming the benchmark’s notability, here are some examples of recent WebXPRT mentions in the press:

Intel cites WebXPRT scores in 9th Gen Core processor promotional material: Hallford, Stephanie (29 May 2019). “Announcing New 9th Gen Intel Core vPro Processors”. Intel IT Peer Network (blog). Retrieved 1 August 2019.
Gizmodo uses WebXPRT for Chromebook testing, stating “We chiefly relied on WebXPRT 2015, a browser-based benchmark designed to test how speedily a computer handles web-based tasks like spreadsheet sorting, image editing, and word processing.”: Cranz, Alex (30 August 2019).“This Is the Best Chromebook to Buy”. Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
AnandTech discloses that WebXPRT 3 and WebXPRT 2015 will be part of their 2019 testing suite: Cutress, Ian (13 November 2018). “The Intel Core i9-9980XE CPU Review: Refresh Until it Hertz”. AnandTech. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
Notebookcheck uses WebXPRT for product testing: Masiero, Manuel (26 July 2019). “Samsung Galaxy A20e Review: Top equipment at a budget price”. Notebookcheck.net. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
Tom’s Hardware uses WebXPRT for product testing, stating “However, the Ryzen 5 3600X is competitive with the stock -9600K in several of the tests, and carves out a slight lead in WebXPRT 3.”: Alcorn, Paul (27 July 2019). “AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Review: the New Mid-Range CPU Leader”. Tom’s Hardware. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
The Tech Report uses WebXPRT for product testing, stating “The WebXPRT 3 benchmark is meant to simulate some realistic workloads one might encounter in web browsing. It’s here primarily as a counterweight to the more synthetic microbenchmarking tools above.”: Killian, Zak (7 July 2019). “AMD’s Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X CPUs reviewed”. The Tech Report. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
TechPowerUp uses WebXPRT for product testing, stating “WebXPRT 3 is a browser benchmark that measures the performance of typical web applications, like photo enhancement, media management using AI, stock option pricing, encryption, OCR, charting, and productivity. This is in contrast to our other two browser benchmarks which focus more on microbenchmarks, testing specific algorithms.”: W1zzard (7 July 2019).“AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Review”. TechPowerUp. Retrieved 1 August 2019.

References

^ Hachmann, Mark (28 November 2018). "Samsung Galaxy Book 2 tablet review: Performance takes a back seat to battery life". PCWorld. Retrieved 8 August 2019.
^ Addison, Ken (19 April 2018). "The Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Zen Matures". PC Perspective. Retrieved 8 August 2019.
^ Cutress, Ian (5 November 2018). "Intel Xeon E Six-Core Review: E-2186G, E-2176G, E-2146G, and E-2136 Tested"". AnandTech. Retrieved 8 August 2019.

Nathanielduke33 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Nathanielduke33[reply]

Reply 16-AUG-2019

Edit request declined

The requested prose contains external links, which are not permitted in the main body of text of Wikipedia articles.

Regards, Spintendo 23:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BandwidthPlace.com looks irrelevant

Addition of BandwidthPlace.com looks like misdirected spam – service is internet speed test, it is not browser speed test. But I will let someone more experienced with this page to check it. Adam Hauner (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Windows Phone 8: Internet Explorer 10 Detailed

[2] Hachmann, Mark (28 November 2018). "Samsung Galaxy Book 2 tablet review: Performance takes a back seat to battery life". PCWorld. Retrieved 8 August 2019.

[3] Addison, Ken (19 April 2018). "The Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Zen Matures". PC Perspective. Retrieved 8 August 2019.

[4] Cutress, Ian (5 November 2018). "Intel Xeon E Six-Core Review: E-2186G, E-2176G, E-2146G, and E-2136 Tested"". AnandTech. Retrieved 8 August 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]