Latest builds compared to: 4.4.8.1000


Dan

Recommended Posts

As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated

to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's

laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed.  Wow, what a difference.  The old

pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds.

It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser,

and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the 

speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000.   I am still tempted to go back to that version

and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and 

sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dan3393486 said:

As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated

to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's

laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed.  Wow, what a difference.  The old

pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds.

It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser,

and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the 

speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000.   I am still tempted to go back to that version

and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and 

sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx

Unfortunately, I have to agree.  I've used the Peacekeeper.futuremark.com website to run tests of Maxthon browsers merely for intercomparison to detect progress or regression.

Today I ran a test on 4.9.0.3000 RC and got a score of  2867.  This is almost the worst score I've ever seen for any  Maxthon version.

Here's a screen shot of my test history on the site:

56b77f04624b8_Peacekeeper-freeuniversalb

The best score  I ever had was with 4.4.1.200 at 4247.  The shot shows a 4060 score for 4.4.8.1000 - not too bad.  But at the bottom we have 4.9.0.2400 at 3141 and 4.9.0.2500 at 3144.  My test of  4.9.0.3000 RC is almost the worst of the Maxthon tests.

In the middle of the set is 4.2.0.2400 which is the one version of Maxthon which had most nearly complete hardware acceleration.  We want that, but we definitely want the speed restored.

                      <<SL>>

PS: I know the Peacekeeper is no longer being supported, but the test is still available and as a relative test is probably good enough to judge progress or lack thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this is seen by our friends at Maxthon -- I appreciate all the hard work that goes in 

to improving things, but all the evidence I have so far points to the pre 4.9 version being 

superior in speed and other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sun Feb 07 2016 03:34:48 GMT+0200 (GTB Standard, Dan3393486 said:

As I have struggled in recent weeks with various 4.9 builds, I have hesitated

to go back to compare with the last pre 4.9 build, but today I got on my wife's

laptop, which still has 4.4.8.1000 installed.  Wow, what a difference.  The old

pre 4.9 Maxthon is quick and responsive, far ahead of 4.9 and recent builds.

It reminded me of why I stuck with Maxthon all of these years as my No 1 browser,

and made me hope upon hope that changes can be made, to bring 4.9 up to the 

speed and efficiency of 4.4.8.1000.   I am still tempted to go back to that version

and will make a decision soon as I just am so frustrated with the slowness and 

sluggishness of 4.9xxxxx

Another reason i keep working on 4.4.8.1000. I tested all 4.9.xxx portable versions except 4.9.0.3000 rc and went back to 4.4.8.1000.

 

19 hours ago, SnowLeopard said:

Unfortunately, I have to agree.  I've used the Peacekeeper.futuremark.com website to run tests of Maxthon browsers merely for intercomparison to detect progress or regression.

Today I ran a test on 4.9.0.3000 RC and got a score of  2867.  This is almost the worst score I've ever seen for any  Maxthon version.

Here's a screen shot of my test history on the site:

56b77f04624b8_Peacekeeper-freeuniversalb

The best score  I ever had was with 4.4.1.200 at 4247.  The shot shows a 4060 score for 4.4.8.1000 - not too bad.  But at the bottom we have 4.9.0.2400 at 3141 and 4.9.0.2500 at 3144.  My test of  4.9.0.3000 RC is almost the worst of the Maxthon tests.

In the middle of the set is 4.2.0.2400 which is the one version of Maxthon which had most nearly complete hardware acceleration.  We want that, but we definitely want the speed restored.

                      <<SL>>

PS: I know the Peacekeeper is no longer being supported, but the test is still available and as a relative test is probably good enough to judge progress or lack thereof.

BTW SnowL, i just did the test with 4.4.8.1000 and my results was 5245! 

peacekeepertest.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Peacekeeper is no longer supported, I am skeptical with the legitimacy of these results although I can confirm similar results.

Using  https://dev.windows.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/testdrive/categories/performance/ tells a whole other story, 4.9.0.3000 comes out ahead in each of the test by a substantial margin! These differences are significant on both performance and graphic tests.

Fish tank, 47 fps vs 60fps with 1000 fish on 4.9

Speed reading: 10 seconds vs 7 seconds on 4.9

Particle acceleration: roughly 50,000 vs 59,000 on 4.9

etc, etc, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AkisS said:

Another reason i keep working on 4.4.8.1000. I tested all 4.9.xxx portable versions except 4.9.0.3000 rc and went back to 4.4.8.1000.

 

BTW SnowL, i just did the test with 4.4.8.1000 and my results was 5245! 

peacekeepertest.png

That shows what good hardware can do.  You've got better than I have to use.  I'm on a Dell Latitude E6430.

                        <<SL>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zurobara said:

One webpage with problems (for me):http://folhetimdasletras.blogspot.ro/2009/10/origem-da-lingua-latina.html

The column (with different texts and links) from the right side is shaking and is high CPU usage

Confirmed, but I see the same behavior in Edge, Nitro, Sogou browsers once you zoom the page.No problems with FF or chrome which are both using newer cores than Mx4.9.

Even in Mx4.9 the shaking stops when you reduce the zoom below 150%(but again at 110% zoom). Cpu usage also drops when there is no "shaking", so it's dependent on zoom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zurobara said:

Hmm, that's not a solution ="other browser behave the same"!

IE 11 or Firefox don't do that, no matter what zoom.

I didn't say it was a solution, merely made an observation....and indicated that the core might be to blame.

The first word I used was "confirmed", some people like confirmation....

Edit: FYI, being that it is probably a core issue, it is unlikely the devs can do anything to remedy the situation until a new core is used which probably won't happen until M5 is released. So though it might not be a satisfactory "solution" for you, it is probably your only recourse.

So, your welcome...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.