have they altered the test? They used the same hardware, the same Win98 SE for both tests.

they compared NS6.1 with IE5.5 (Performance set  =100%)
 

NS6.1 test IE 6 test
Loading Cached Pages 52% 34%
Loading Nested Tables 56% 54%
Loading Mixed Text and Graphics 41% 53%
Caffeine Mark 3.0 Normalized 42% 44%

so where do these different numbers come from? is this the normal fluctuation?

Regards,
Helge

Randell Jesup schrieb:

Steve Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"We were also a little underwhelmed by IE 6's performance in our speed tests. In one of our tests, IE 6 outperformed IE 5.5 and Netscape 6.1. And IE 6 consistently outperformed Netscape 6.1. However, IE 6 lagged behind its predecessor in almost every other test--not by much, but we'd expect better performance from a major upgrade. "
>http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6982030-3.html
>
>These graphs show mozilla is only 2x-3x slower than IE5.5
>http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6982030-6.html

        Some of their other (summary) graphs show that Mozilla is much
slower than IE5.5 on Win98, but faster than IE5.5 on Win2000 by as much as
1/3rd.  This is probably (guess) because of the much worse VM implementation
on Win98.

See:
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-6804817-4.html?tag=st.sw.3227883-8-6804817-2.txt.3227883-8-6804817-4
 

Reply via email to