Hello everyone i have got a little trick to play gba games on our htc touch viva which has a low processor....
Gba game lovers might have tried many many emulator for windows mobile to play but i know none of them properly emulate if they do also then also the game will lag really too much, i have myself experienced.
But no more lags you can play gba games on viva without any lag i myself tested.....
Now how to do that? Simple see here.
If you found that trick useful (That is smoother than ever gameplay) plz leave a comment/question anything you wish there in techz.in or here.
but with no sound? right?
TheRem said:
but with no sound? right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes obviously with no sound as its running on android and android for opal still doesn't have sound hopefully musikmonk and other developers would bring it in next version. Just try that thing iam confident that you will see a major improvement definitely. And then post here how was you exp (you can post on that site also).
duh i just overclock and kill backgroung process which are useless then just play...it works for me ....btw i overclock to 276...so is the method u posted superior
too bad Gameboid isn't free or open source.
shaffaf said:
duh i just overclock and kill backgroung process which are useless then just play...it works for me ....btw i overclock to 276...so is the method u posted superior
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks btw do you know without any overclock also that trick will work definitely u will feel the difference while playing in wm then in andro..
TheRem said:
too bad Gameboid isn't free or open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah but rem if u tried that post your results.
shaffaf said:
duh i just overclock and kill backgroung process which are useless then just play...it works for me ....btw i overclock to 276...so is the method u posted superior
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The weird thing is that on Android, we're actually underclocking the cpu on Android and the game speed is still better than game speed on wm6.x with overclocking.
TheRem said:
too bad Gameboid isn't free or open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a free version called Gameboid Lite. It's missing game state saving. But normal game saving works fine.
Yes muskimonk even if you have underclocked android still gba games run much smoother i have wrote the reason on techz.in --- Simply android uses the hardware efficiently than wm, oh yes i forgot there is gameboid lite version..
I tried out the new game called Dungeon Defenders the first wave
its the first game using unreal engine on android and I used darkstone's superram
its really laggy
will there be anyway to make it run smooth or is this hd2's hardware limitation?
p.s/
anyway my personal opinion to superRAM.. is bad..only good thing about it is the booting speed. May I know why you guys call it super fast other then booting speed? because the previous rom I used, I used launcher pro and if I use launcher pro everything looked hyper fast, and I thought it would be hyper-hyper fast on superram but it was the same, so I was like.. ok.. then let me try live wall paper and speed. but it was same like previous rom choppy when opening application box. In other words nothing different.( but for quadrant score it scored higher then last rom) however game ran slower, like zenonia 3
previous rom ran without slowing down of speed but on this rom it is unplayable.
i am changing it.. No offense please.. its just my personal experience..
dirn1111 said:
I tried out the new game called Dungeon Defenders the first wave
its the first game using unreal engine on android and I used darkstone's superram
its really laggy
will there be anyway to make it run smooth or is this hd2's hardware limitation?
p.s/
anyway my personal opinion to superRAM.. is bad..only good thing about it is the booting speed. May I know why you guys call it super fast other then booting speed? because the previous rom I used, I used launcher pro and if I use launcher pro everything looked hyper fast, and I thought it would be hyper-hyper fast on superram but it was the same, so I was like.. ok.. then let me try live wall paper and speed. but it was same like previous rom choppy when opening application box. In other words nothing different.( but for quadrant score it scored higher then last rom) however game ran slower, like zenonia 3
previous rom ran without slowing down of speed but on this rom it is unplayable.
i am changing it.. No offense please.. its just my personal experience..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought it was tolerable. I am also using superRAM. I suspect the lag is due to the lack of RAM for the game. Maybe you should disable the RAM boot? I suspect that would improve the game performance and maybe overclock it to above 1Ghz. I am lazy to change my ROM again.
Use moto touch 4G Rom its best for 3d games nenamark 20.5, while superman I get 15.4
yeah dungeon defenders a bit laggy i use mdj froyo hd revo 1.2 with hastarin 8.6.
even oc to 1228 still lags a bit
dirn1111 said:
I tried out the new game called Dungeon Defenders the first wave
its the first game using unreal engine on android and I used darkstone's superram
its really laggy
will there be anyway to make it run smooth or is this hd2's hardware limitation?
p.s/
anyway my personal opinion to superRAM.. is bad..only good thing about it is the booting speed. May I know why you guys call it super fast other then booting speed? because the previous rom I used, I used launcher pro and if I use launcher pro everything looked hyper fast, and I thought it would be hyper-hyper fast on superram but it was the same, so I was like.. ok.. then let me try live wall paper and speed. but it was same like previous rom choppy when opening application box. In other words nothing different.( but for quadrant score it scored higher then last rom) however game ran slower, like zenonia 3
previous rom ran without slowing down of speed but on this rom it is unplayable.
i am changing it.. No offense please.. its just my personal experience..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ye you are right, on ram builds only the navigating on the device is super fast, but graphics etc are choppy, like there is some display driver missing.. at least it felt that way last time i checked.. but the idea of ram builds is great. the disadvantage is, that you can only use an ugly no features builds for now :/
can anyone make a video to show us how laggy the game on HD2 is?
I tested it in Mdeejay 4.6 HD it was awesome. But in Gingerbread rc5 it lagged
oh no! I just bougth the Dungeon Defenders and have the darkstone 1.5 =/
janne303 said:
oh no! I just bougth the Dungeon Defenders and have the darkstone 1.5 =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just get a dhd rom , they have killer performance
souljaboy said:
just get a dhd rom , they have killer performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just and just... Lots of work with titanium backup .... hehe
janne303 said:
Just and just... Lots of work with titanium backup .... hehe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you have the pro version it's pretty fast.
Can someone make a video of Dungeon defenders on a DHD build ?
Thanks
on the requirements it seems that the hd2 just makes the minimum..
janne303 said:
Just and just... Lots of work with titanium backup .... hehe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well ya know , its something for something
i'm intrested too.. i've mdj gingerbread cyanogen mod 7 based v2.6 on nand (very very very great ROM)... but dungeon defenders is unplayable.. like 10 fps.. i'd know if it's my problem or it's normal... can someone post a video with a "game-friendly" Rom?
i know that HD2 has all the requierments to run great!
Dugeon defenders will never run fine or ok on the hd2, walking around and stuff is ok(about 10-15 fps thats what i guess the game runs about) but as soon as monsters come close to you its slows to a crawl 4-5 fps, the adreno 200 is just not powerfull enough to handle dungeon defenders, after all its the crapiest of all mobile gpus(with open gl es 2.0 support). if you whant to run dungeon defendr at a playable frame rate get ether an sgs(best choice of currrent phone until tegra 2 based phones come out) or any omap cpu based phones ie: cliq2, driod,milestone etc etc. btw out of topic but, the new Modern Combat 2 Black pegasus game, runs awesomely great on the snapdraogn devices, id say around 40-45 fps. so yea if you got some bucks buy it.
I found out the performance of HTML5 is quite impressive on SGSIII stock browser... not that I use it frequently or that HTML5 is that prevalent even now.. I am happy my flash is still supported across all browsers.
Dolphin does beat it (469) but at a score of 435 it beats Opera12.01 (406) and Chrome as well (390)..
anyone a idea why samsung s3 i9305 have problems playing html5 videos? When i launch a video i can't see any picture, only sound is played. Also tried another html5 player app, but same problem.
Rom: cyanogenmod 10.2
(i can't post to the special thread "cyaogenmod" becaus auf newbie restrictions)
docsaq said:
I found out the performance of HTML5 is quite impressive on SGSIII stock browser... not that I use it frequently or that HTML5 is that prevalent even now.. I am happy my flash is still supported across all browsers.
Dolphin does beat it (469) but at a score of 435 it beats Opera12.01 (406) and Chrome as well (390)..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mention a couple of numbers, but what do they mean (e.g. loading time ) and how did you test the performance?
OP
16th November 2012
RMCA said:
You mention a couple of numbers, but what do they mean (e.g. loading time ) and how did you test the performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The numbers I mentioned are from www.html5test.com score.
Now I am on Galaxy Note II and its stock browser does better than chrome, dolphin and Opera.
i got 434 with default browser and 419 with dolphin
Pardus rom Android 4.1.2
the html5test is just a stadard compliance test
it has nothing to do with performance and smoothness
hey friends ,after a long time came back to xda. I was just checking the web and came across the Firefox OS minimum requirement.
according to softpedia the minimum requirement for Firefox OS is
min 800mhz
min 256 mb ram
qvga display
check this link :http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-OS-Minimum-Hardware-Requirements-333606.shtml
hope we have some life left for the SGY .I love my SGY:good:
I presume you will need to get hold of the source code and build & compile it for our device if it is at all possible
Very very tough
Because its non android
ROM EVOLUTION X3
KERNEL HELL FUSION
ALINS JB THEME + EVOLUTION S3 STATUS BAR.
Want To Ask Question? Ask Here
Dude, I really think that hardware won't support Firefox OS. This device lacks RAM and Internal Storage.
See minimum requirment ram is 256 mb
ROM EVOLUTION X3
KERNEL HELL FUSION
ALINS JB THEME + EVOLUTION S3 STATUS BAR.
Want To Ask Question? Ask Here
WebertRLZ said:
Dude, I really think that hardware won't support Firefox OS. This device lacks RAM and Internal Storage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Firefox OS is targeting low end devices they even showed it on a unnamed (so u know it sucked) armv6 phone galaxy y is well within the requirements only problem is if we can actually port this with incomplete drivers but either way it's a waste of time this OS is horrible
PHONE SLOW CLICK ME?
_____________________________________
"No one lives in the slums because they want to. It's like this train. It can't run anywhere except where its rails take it."- Cloud[FFvii]"
Hello All
In post #19 I have an update with tests of Beta versions of most popular browsers.
I've been reading yesterday a browser comparison between Chrome, Firefox, IE and Opera on both Windows and Linux platforms and I've decided to do something similar for Galaxy Note 2.
Now for some starting info:
Rom - Phoenix v13
Kernel - Perseus 36.3
OC - yes, 1.8Ghz, GPU untouched, a bit of undervolt also.
The system is fairly pure, default speedups as found in Phoenix installed. Rom is ODEXED
Not much apps installed.
Contenders: all currently downloaded from Playstore
- Samsung Browser
- Chrome 28.0.1500
- Firefox 22.0
- Opera 15.0.1162
- Maxthon 4.0.6.2000 B2844
They were all put under the following tests:
- HTML5 Test - Link
- HTML5 Benchmark - Link - Basically a 2D game benchmark.
- Octane - Link
- Browsermark 2.0 - Link
- Mazesolver (Microsoft) - Link
- Lawnmark (Microsoft) - Link
There is a story about that benchmark involving cheating as stated here but it does not affect my comparison.
- Peacekeeper - Link
- Sunspider 1.0 - Link
- V8 Benchmark (succeeded by Octane but still valid and does offer different results) - Link
- Dromaeo - Link - be carefull, it takes about 20 minutes or more to complete.
So off to results:
...........XXXXX................Stock browser.....Chrome (+%).........Firefox (+%).........Opera (+%)..........Maxthon (+%)......Dolphin (+%)........UC (+%)
HTML 5 Test.................434.....................410 (94%).............422 (97%).............428 (98.6%).........419 (96.5%).......419 (96%).............404 (93%)..........more is better
HTML Benchmark..........43......................1911 (4400%)........2731 (6351%).......2043 (4751%)......77 (179%).........107 (248%)............113 (263%)........more is better
Octane..........................2402...................2900 (120%)..........2622 (109%).........2783 (116%).......2375 (99%)........2451 (102%)..........2441 (101.6%).....more is better
Browsemark 2.0............2525...................2427 (96%)............2306 (91%)...........2897 (115%).......2123 (84%)........1956 (77%)............1963 (78%)..........more is better
Mazesolver (20)............1.9......................4.9 (257%)..............6 (315%)..............6.3 (331%)..........1.6 (84%)...........2 (105%).................1.9 (100%)........less is better
Mazesolver (30)............9.6......................20 (208%)..............91 (948%)............25 (260%)...........4.9 (51%)...........5,6 (58%).................5,9 (61%)..........less is better
Mazesolver (40)............30.......................101 (336%)............112 (373%)..........109 (363%).........28 (93%)............29 (97%)..................31 (103%)........less is better
Lawnmark.....................538......................873 (162%)............1071 (199%)........679 (126%).........515 (96%)...........not_finished *2............not_finished *3..........less is better
Peacekeeper ...............873......................891 (102%)............605 (69%) *1........891 (102%).........927 (106%).........929 (106%)............857 (98%)..........more is better
Sunspider.....................1041....................812 (78%)..............863 (83%)............806 (77%)...........1160 (111%)........1080 (103.7%).......1050 (101%)........less is better
V8 Benchmark..............2690....................3101 (115%)..........2677 (99.5%).......3191 (119%)........2546 (94.6%)......2597 (96%)............2553 (95%)..........more is better
Dromaeo.......................167.15.................179.92 (107.6%)....146.42 (87.6%)....186.03 (111%).....168.6 (100.8%)...161.94 (97%).........164,44 (98%)..........more is better
*1 - this result is a strange one since Firefox is the only browser that allowed almost all videos to play, there were some problems with buffering so the videos skipped some but they worked, not one other browser did. So I don't understand why the score is so low, maybe other parts were bad.
*2 and *3 - in both cases browsers simply closed without any error sometime after starting benchmark (less than 3 minutes), consecutive tries resulted in closing few seconds after starting benchmark. Both browsers had to be fully restarted (as in killed in apps manager or by phone restart)
HTML5 test is only a measure of how well browsers conform to HTML standard, somewhat like old ACID3 test.
Now, HTML5 Benchmark on stock and Maxthon were a slideshow, <2 fps and it took more than 30 minutes to complete. I have no idea why as it is a simple 2D platform game and other browsers run quite well even up to 60 fps in case of Firefox.
Mazesolver had to be run more than 10 times for every settings and median calculated because tests were prone to big variations. As such I would mark that test as unreliable. Lawnmark, despite being unfairly skewed for IE 10/11 is an equal oportunity test for other browsers, so the results "stay"
To compare browsers I will count Octane, Browsermark, Peacekeeper, Sunspider, V8 and Dromaeo benchmarks.
Results:
Chrome is on average 10,43% faster than Stock Browser
Firefox is on average 4.48% slower than Stock Browser
Opera is on average 14,33% faster than Stock Browser
Maxthon is on average 4.43% slower than Stock Browser
Dolphin is on average 4.23% slower than Stock Browser
UC Browser is on average 5.06% slower than Stock Browser
And the Winner is ....... Opera
Now all those results should also be counted against power consumption and here is where things change a lot. I started those test with full battery and all the browsers did the same amount of work actually doing those tests. The problem is that while Chrome, Stock, Maxthon and Firefox required roughly the same amount of power, Opera used more than twice that. I'm attaching screenshots of those results.
View attachment 2133846 View attachment 2133847 View attachment 2133848 View attachment 2133849View attachment 2133855 View attachment 2133856 View attachment 2133857 View attachment 2133858
On other topic, I think almost 6 hours of screen on time with almost all that time CPU was working full tilt and screen was @100% is a great result. There were only short times when I left the phone to cool off, mostly with screen on but not working hard
Any comments or questions, just ask
Update for Naked Browser - the scores were in order: 2470 (103%), 2019 (80%), 824 (94%), 1087 (104.5%), 2729 (101.4%) and 168.69 (101%)
Total score for it: Naked Browser is on average 4.18% slower than Stock Browser
Next Boat Browser - the scores were in order: 2483 (103%), 2109 (83%), 850 (97%), 909 (87%), 2479 (92%), 165.98 (99%)
Total score for it: Boat Browser is on average 2.16% slower than Stock Browser
ONE Browser - the scores were in order: 2342 (97.5%), 2097 (83%), 680 (78%),1801 (173%), 1280 (47.5%), 166.62 (99.7%)
Total score for it: ONE Browser is on average 27.88% slower than Stock Browser
From all those scores of different browsers it's apparent that some of the use a common rendering engine (Firefox, Maxthon, Dolphin, UC and Naked and probably Boat too) because their results are within 1% of each other while Samsung, Opera and Chrome are much different. So between those above you can choose based on features set that they have because performance is about equal.
If you are interested in modern games based on HTML5 code, Firefox and One browsers are the way to go with Chrome and Opera about 30% slower. HTML5 Benchmark which I did not include in final score (but tested all browsers with) shows great disparity between browsers.
The scores:
Stock : 43 points
Chrome : 1911 points
Firefox : 2622 points
Opera : 2043 points
Maxthon : 77 points
Dolphin : 107 points
Naked : 96 points
UC : 113 points
Boat : 78 points
ONE : 3041 points
I do not understand how it's possible to get a 30 times difference in modern times in a fairly important category but there you have it. I hope it's not similar to Microsoft's Lawnmark benchmark that before every iteration followed (as is standard for some reason) 4ms pause while IE 10 and 11 allowed for "no pause" policy. The results - IE 10/11 finished in 15 seconds, other browsers took upwards of 10 minutes. The funny thing is, some Chrome addicts took the benchmark code and set a level playing field by removing the wait time for every browser, and lo and behold, IE was 2 times slower than Firefox and 3 times slower than Opera with Chrome somewhere in the middle.
It gives some thoughts as in both cases (HTML5 benchmark and Lawnmark) after benchmark run, the phone / cpu is completely cool. I do not at the moment have any monitoring app installed, but CoolTool would be easy to use to verify that.
In light of recent "strange" benchmark results of newer Intel chips that happend to be Intel compiler using a flaw in Antutu benchmark code all benchmark results can be suspected.
You can argue that compiler optimisations are the lifeblood of fast computing, but when you optimize code by hand to get best score in a benchmark, it's not clean fight. Because no other app is going to have the same optimizations so the benchmark result is misleading to the real life performance of the hardware. All that on top of usefullness/uselessness of benchmarks in the whole
And yet non of these browsers run as smoothly as the stock samsung browser when scrolling and zooming on any web page...
Where is dolphin?
True, Stock is smooth as butter, but there are no benchmarks that test smoothness so that conclusion is up to the user. I may test dolphin but there will be no power use tests for it because I would not be able to get comparable data.
Any other requests for browsers?
Hell Guardian said:
Where is dolphin?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2nd Dolphin and Naked Browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
I prefer the stock browser regardless of the statistics.
Nice comparison! I personally switch between Firefox and 'UC Browser'.
I find UC Browser really good for full screen/desktop content, but some websites don't display correctly.
I think I'm leaning towards boat - gestures are really helpful on Note 2 than it is on other phones. The only thing I miss is inverted browsing. There's a night mode which is in many ways better than inverted browsing, but in many sites it's not useable compared to the proper inverted browsing.
Also obviously much better control over flash plugins and everything. Seriously, give it a go.
dazza7111 said:
2nd Dolphin and Naked Browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't test naked browser as it's not available for download in Poland (I mean free version). Paid is available but I won't buy it just to test it. (Or you can share .apk)
Dolphin is allready tested, I will update results later.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium
Naked browser is free on xda I think or The Dev website
Nice benchmarks!
I'd like to see Boat too.
Have been using it for some time and I really like it. It feels both fast and smooth!
Browser benchmarks give points for data preloading, using proxies, and other items like ability to load an HTML5 video placeholder.
Benchmarks do not evaluate browser integrity.
Naked Browser does not preload data, send your data through a proxy, or use resources on things like HTML5 video placeholders.
--Naked Browser developer
aminaked said:
Newer versions of Stock Browser (ICS+) preload web site data by default.
Naked Browser does not preload data. [As developer of Naked Browser I have scoured multiple versions of Stock Browser source code.]
The greater issue is Android web browser integrity. It turns out that even Firefox/Opera/Chrome are suspect.
Spying not only violates privacy but wastes battery, bandwidth, and CPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, I also do not like to waste bandwidth and battery. On the other hand I do like to quickly open subpages..... in the end I will go with saving money For now If I may ask, on what code is Your browser based (mostly?) and is there any hope of porting this great speed in HTML5 execution (like in Firefox or One browsers) ?
mat9v said:
I agree, I also do not like to waste bandwidth and battery. On the other hand I do like to quickly open subpages..... in the end I will go with saving money For now If I may ask, on what code is Your browser based (mostly?) and is there any hope of porting this great speed in HTML5 execution (like in Firefox or Safari - One browsers) ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wrote it from scratch but looked at stock, Zirco, Firefox, and all available code. It uses WebView on your device so HTML5 depends on how much capability Google WebView has on your device.
Almost every Android web browser including mainstream ones are spyware. This is why I made Naked Browser. Here is the XDA thread for it if you want to talk more about it: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1929663
Next to stock the only browser comes close to it for smoothness is Mozilla. But wish it had an exit option and full screen
Tried them all. Naked is alright, but the UI is awkward!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
jujuburi said:
Next to stock the only browser comes close to it for smoothness is Mozilla. But wish it had an exit option and full screen
Tried them all. Naked is alright, but the UI is awkward!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm testing now Beta versions of Mozilla, Opera, Chrome and Dolphin. Results will follow maybe tomorrow but it's apparent the differences are sometimes "game changing"
mat9v said:
I'm testing now Beta versions of Mozilla, Opera, Chrome and Dolphin. Results will follow maybe tomorrow but it's apparent the differences are sometimes "game changing"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't forget to enable chrome://flags features in chrome beta browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Manjunath324 said:
Don't forget to enable chrome://flags features in chrome beta browser.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which futures should I enable? I never been in that happy chrommy place
OK, here be the Beta versions of Main Android Browsers benchmarks:
...........XXXXX..............Chrome standard(+%).....Chrome beta (+%)....Chrome beta exp. (+%)........Opera beta (+%).......Dolphin beta.(+%) .Firefox beta (+%)
HTML 5 Test.................410 (94%).....................429 (99%).................444 (102%).........................428 (99%)..................482 (111%) ...........426 (98%) ..........more is better
HTML5 Benchmark.......1911 .............................2462.........................2723....................................2248..........................3170.......................2674...................more is better
Octane..........................2900 (120%).................3040 (127%).............3064 (128%).......................2923 (122%)..............2304 (96%) ...........2893 (120%).......more is better
Browsemark 2.0............2427 (96%)...................2347 (93%)...............2694 (107%).......................2934 (116%)..............2659 (105%)..........2623 (104%).......more is better
Peacekeeper ...............891 (102%)...................881 (101%)...............872 (100%)..........................918 (105%)................Failed....................636 (73%)...........more is better
Sunspider.....................812 (78%).....................805 (77%).................780 (75%)............................790 (76%)..................935 (90%).............820 (79%)............less is better
V8 Benchmark..............310 1 (115%)................3119 (116%).............3255 (121%)........................3219 (120%)..............2734 (102%).........3114 (116%)........more is better
Dromaeo.......................179.92 (107.6%)...........179.81 (107.6%)......181.02 (108.3%)...................184.4 (110.3%)..........151.31 (90%)........142.92 (85%).......more is better
Some thoughts are neccessary here:
1. I am no fan of Firefox, but in both Browsermark and Peacekeeper benchmarks it was the only benchmark to actually display most of the tests correctly as in playing videos, displaying all 3D content or correctly resizing webpages during tests.
2. There is sometimes large difference in speed when requesting desktop versions of webpage ns mobile (even if on the first glance they look the same) and it can affect benchmark results. For example HTML5 benchmark on some browsers takes 1/2 screen, on others is resized to fit and then on others don't even fit the screen. I tried to keep things equal by manually resizing the "game window" to fit the screen but I do not know the impact of manual resize on the score. The other thing is benchmarks in portrait and landscape mode again differ, sometimes by 5-10%, as such all results are from benchmarks run in portrait mode.
3. Dromaeo benchmark is "made by Mozilla" and curiously it shows the worst scores on Firefox (both mobile and desktop versions as tested on my laptop PC). Results are displayed in "runs/s" so it should read that "the higher the better", my PC scores over 450 in Firefox and over 600 in Chrome so it should be ok. Still, why does Firefox score so low, when in other Java Script benchmarks it is one of the fastest, I have no idea.
To compare browsers I will count Octane, Browsermark, Peacekeeper, Sunspider, V8 and Dromaeo benchmarks.
Chrome is on average 10,43% faster than Stock Browser
Chrome beta is on average 11.27% faster than Stock Browser
Chrome beta with experimental options turned on is on average 14,88% faster than Stock Browser
Opera beta is on average 16.21% faster than Stock Browser
Dolphin beta is on average 0.5% faster than Stock Browser
Firefox beta is on average 3.17% faster than Stock Browser
Personally on my Note 2 I would leave 3 browsers - Stock (smooooth), Opera (faaaast) and Firefox (compatible!!), although I would miss great sync options offered by Chrome. Naked browser, while a great effort, has to be worked on some more to win, either of compatibility, interface or speed, because for now the only thing that speaks for it is that it does not spy on us (which I can not test anyway )
And the winner is........... still Opera but by much smaller margin
Excellent, thanks for testing them out for us.