>From my experience it depends a lot on the browser, tested code and even CPU model...
With most of my code I see about the same speed or a slight advantage for WASM, I have one demo (on Firefox) where WASM is 25% faster than the asm.js version (this demo in Firefox Nightly on Windows, with 1024k Dragons, don't bother with the current stable Firefox version, the demo triggers a crash bug which has only been fixed a few days ago): http://floooh.github.io/oryol-samples/wasm/Dragons.html As a rule of thumb I would expect about the same speed from asm.js vs WebAssembly for most real-world code (the big advantage of WebAssembly is faster startup for large demos, and slightly smaller download size). Cheers, -Floh. Am Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2017 19:14:45 UTC+2 schrieb Jayesh Salvi: > > Hi, > > I ran a performance test with the emscriptened LAPACK module, between two > targets asm.js and WASM. The test performs a mathematical task (computing > the equation of line passing through 10000 points using least squares > approximation, which invokes LAPACK routines underneath). I ran it on > Firefox 54 (64-bit) on Linux. I didn't see any significant difference > between the running times with two versions of lapack. In fact > asm.js-LAPACK was a bit faster than WASM-LAPACK. > > asm.js LAPACK time = 120.8 msec > WASM LAPACK time = 125.4 msec > > You can see the code here > https://github.com/bluemathsoft/bluemath/blob/master/test/perf-index.ts > > Is this expected? Or is it too early in development of WASM to compare its > speed with asm.js? > > Thanks. > -- > Jayesh > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
