Waterfox 8.0 Final (64 bit Firefox)

[AthlonXP1800]

I came to browsed warp2search.net for news and noticed Waterfox I never heard of.

Waterfox is basically a 64 bit Firefox build compiled from source code.

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/

I was surprised to find Waterfox 4 in their download page made me wondered why on earth Modzilla still not released 64 bit Firefox build but had completed 64 bit released source codes of Firefox 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4?

I went to Modzilla forum and found this:

No, the earliest 64-bit version would be Firefox 10.0 - but only if a 64-bit build moves from Nightly to Aurora next week.

Development builds start as Nightly, then move to Aurora, then to Beta, then to being a Release version. No Aurora build and it stays as a Nightly - two versions from Release.

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/que...#answer-269925

What a stupid move, Modzilla kept lied and lied all the time claimed when Firefox 4 released it would have first 64 bit version but it continued to dragged on through Firefox 5, 6 and said it would be released on 7. So still no 64 bit version for Firefox 8 and I dont think they will release 64 bit Firefox when it hit 10.0. It still stuck in Nightly builds for 2 years now.

Screwed you Modzilla.

If you want 64 bit released build of Firefox now, go get Waterfox.

Here the updated HTML5 benchmark results:

http://html5-benchmark.com/

Waterfox 8 64 bit Score: 2045 Total CPU Time: 167.13s, Total Lag: 803ms
Firefox 8 32bit Score: 2147 Total CPU Time: 175.00s, Total Lag: 475ms
Firefox Nightly build 11.0a1 32bit Score: 2295 Total CPU Time: 173.07s, Total Lag: 198ms
Firefox Nightly build 11.0a1 64bit Score: 2039 Total CPU Time: 158.38s, Total Lag: 924ms
itouch 4G iOS 5 Safari Score: 1667 Total CPU Time: 215.97s, Total Lag: 1350ms
Samsung Galaxy S2 Android 2.3.4 Firefox 8 Score: 2258 Total CPU Time: 143.14s, Total Lag: 645ms
Google Chrome 15.0.874.120 m 32bit Score: 4172 Total CPU Time: 24.48s, Total Lag: 832ms
Internet Explorer 9.0.8112.16421 32bit Score: 7120 Total CPU Time: 18.04s, Total Lag: 61ms
Internet Explorer 9.0.8112.16421 64bit Score: 5575 Total CPU Time: 30.01s, Total Lag: 61ms

[Q]

The scores look worse for 64 bit, don't they? And are horrible compared to IE9?

[pross]

I got 10100 on chrome and 8180 on firefox.... so those numbers suck

[AthlonXP1800]

Originally Posted by Q

The scores look worse for 64 bit, don't they? And are horrible compared to IE9?

Yeah it make me wonder why the Firefox and Waterfox scores are bad on AMD CPUs but higher scores on IE9.

[AthlonXP1800]

Originally Posted by pross

I got 10100 on chrome and 8180 on firefox.... so those numbers suck

Wow these are very good numbers, I can see you used Sandy Bridge i7 2600K had put Phenom II and Bulldozer to shame in HTML5 benchmarks.

It seemed HTML5 are better optimized on Intel CPUs and not optimized on AMD CPUs.

Cant wait to upgrade to Ivy Bridge in Q1 2012.

[-=DVS=-]

Firefox 8.0 32bit with OC sandy i score little over 2400 ?

[Bman212121]

That benchmark appeared to be frame capped at 60fps. Was sitting at 63 - 64fps through the entire test.

Score: 10086

Total CPU Time: 9.83s, Total Lag: 0ms


Using IE9 on an I7 2600K @ 4.2ghz.

Chrome 15 pulls:

Score: 11579
Total CPU Time: 7.46s, Total Lag: 0ms

Difference being that it ran at 59 - 60 fps the whole time.

I'd have to guess this test relies on your GPU more than the CPU.

EDIT: Not really, ATI overdrive is showing between 0 and 5% GPU activity with the card still downclocked.

I can generate lag if I start minimizing or maximizing other windows. Other than that both runs there is 0 on the lag meter.

[-=DVS=-]

Hmm turned Hardware Acceleration off in firefox got Score: 6383 Total CPU Time: 23.45s, Total Lag: 35ms . the heck? maybe some of my addons not playing nicely.

[Johnny C]

Is the benchmark supposed to use more than one core?