I don't think I have the results anymore, but benches between epiphany-webkit and epiphany-gecko were very similar.
The benchmarks I've used stress the browser engine, especially javascript. Perceived performance is usually better with webkit as well, though. 2009/6/10 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > I wrote earlier: >>> Politics aside, I do not doubt that webkit might perform better than >>> mozilla. In some situations. Optimized in certain ways. 'Cause >>> there are a bunch of complex factors, as I understand it (and I don't >>> understand it that deeply, really). > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:22:37PM +0100, Lucian Branescu wrote: >>Before GSoC started, I did my own tests of webkit vs gecko. Firefox >>lost everywhere and lost especially bad on memory usage. >> >>http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/317039/webkit%20vs%20gecko%20osx.txt >>http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/317039/webkit%20vs%20gecko%20soas.txt >>http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/317039/webkit%20vs%20gecko%20winxp.txt > > Did you simply test default configurations of each tools, or is the > optimizations documented somewhere? > > As I understand it, especially the large tools ike Mozilla can be > optimized for different purposes. > > Example: prefetching pages (default enabled in Mozilla) is probably bad > on memory and has no benefit in load-a-bunch-as-fast-as-possible tests > but improves perceived load time in load-pause-load scenarios (i.e. > normal web browsing). > > I can also imagine how image buffering hurts memory but affects e.g. > scrolling performance. > > > So it really makes little sense to me to compare default settings of > these tools, if the purpose is to find the best performance in netbooks: > Mozilla defualt are most likely optimized for more powerful hardware. > > Either investigate options to tune and document all optimizations, or > compare browsers (based on each of the core frameworks) that are > optimized for low-ressource environments. > > The gecko-based Kazehakase is (according to its author, which I had the > opportunity to meet in person when invited to Japan a few years ago) > leaner than Firefox, but still targeted normal desktop environment. > Newer releases of it seems to support switching between gecko and webkit > as backend. Perhaps that is a good candidate for head-to-head > comparison of similarly targeted tools. > > Epiphany seems to also support both gecko and webkit backends. > > Sorry, I have no suggestions for ideal tools to compare for this > challenge - tools that are optimized for reduced memory footprint while > still being targeted normal X11 environment. > > > - Jonas > > - -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEAREDAAYFAkov8bQACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhYRwCfXNu2CWy2Cw7HN0izXJncyphk > 8H8AmwX/FCkBIgCdzkSrtml6xLrc9Hw2 > =QFId > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel