Firefox 4: hardware acceleration - Mozilla Hacks - the Web developer blog

Firefox 4: hardware acceleration

Editor’s note: If you’ve arrived here via the Mozilla Support site because you are exploring advanced settings or having frequent crashes at startup, this probably isn’t the right solution. It’s been a few years since Firefox 4 was released and this post was written. You might want to visit this Troubleshooting page instead.

What is hardware acceleration?

Hardware acceleration” is basically using the GPU when it’s possible (instead of the CPU). This makes page-drawing operations faster.

There’s two different levels of acceleration going on:

  • Content acceleration speeds up rendering the actual page content, such as the text, images, CSS borders, etc. Content acceleration is also used to speed up the 2D HTML canvas. On Windows Vista/7, we use Direct2D for this and it has been activated in this new beta.
  • Compositing acceleration speeds up putting together chunks of already-rendered content (layers) together for final display in the window, potentially applying effects such as transforms along the way. For example, if you had a HTML5 video that was playing, and it had CSS effects applied to it that was making it rotate and fade in and out, that would be using compositing acceleration to make that go fast. (This feature is not activated by default yet.)

>> Run the test yourself: Hardware Acceleration Stress Test. <<
Credits for the photos: Paul (dex).

Hardware Acceleration by operating system:

These optimizations are available only if you have compatible hardware and the associated drivers.

Operation Linux Windows XP Windows Vista/7 Mac OS X
Content XRender None Direct2D Quartz1
Compositing OpenGL Direct 3D Direct 3D OpenGL

[1]: Quartz is basically CPU-only. QuartzGL (GPU acceleration for the Quartz 2D API) is not activated in Firefox for now (nor in other browsers).

Important note: Don’t confuse hardware acceleration with WebGL. WebGL is an OpenGL-like API for Javascript to draw 3D objects into a <canvas> element. Obviously, WebGL is itself hardware accelerated since it uses OpenGL (or Direct3D through ANGLE on Windows if no OpenGL drivers are present).

We need help!

Help us to improve hardware acceleration in Firefox: Install the Grafx Bot extension (details here and add-on here).

Firefox’s hardware acceleration interacts with a machine’s graphics hardware via DirectX or OpenGL, depending on platform. These interactions tend to be very sensitive to the graphics environment on the system (e.g., the specific video card(s) on the system, how much VRAM is available, the version of the video driver, the OS version, etc). In fact, there are so many permutations of the relevant factors that we can’t test them all internally.

Grafx Bot runs a suite of automatic tests on your machine that exercises interesting aspects of hardware acceleration (for about 5 to 20 minutes). At the end of the tests, you can send your results to Mozilla (with anonymous video configuration information), where the data will be collected and analyzed, and hopefully lead to bug fixes and more reliable code for hardware acceleration than we’d otherwise have.

We need help from the community, so we can get exposure on as many unique hardware environments as possible.

About Paul Rouget

Paul is a Firefox developer.

More articles by Paul Rouget…


399 comments

  1. Shmerl

    Why not to use OpenGL across all platforms?

    September 7th, 2010 at 14:22

    1. Josh

      D2D provides a better experience on Windows.

      September 7th, 2010 at 15:02

    2. FledMorphine

      That’s a good question.

      September 7th, 2010 at 17:15

    3. Christopher Blizzard

      OpenGL and D2D are very different APIs. OpenGL is a full 3D API while D2D is a strictly 2D API. Very different use cases.

      We’re using OpenGL on Linux & Mac for some operations (compositing, in particular) and will be using it for WebGL as well.

      We’re using D3D on Windows for compositing operations and will likely be using ANGLE as well for WebGL.

      Just remember that D2D and OpenGL have very different use cases.

      September 9th, 2010 at 08:58

      1. shmerl

        The question was rather about D3D functionality overlapping with that of OpenGL. I.e. why not to use OpenGL whenever possible. It’s an open technology – more in Mozilla line of development.

        September 11th, 2010 at 23:56

        1. voidmind

          Probably because DirectX has better driver support on Windows than OpenGL. It doesn’t really matter which API they use because this acceleration happens in the background for web page rendering… The API is not used by web devs themselve so it’s not like choosing D3D over OpenGL promoted one API over the other.

          It’s the equivalent of having to choose between using some open source PNG rendering library or whatever Windows already offers… to the user and web developper, it’s all the same so the better choice in this case is not the most open one but the one that’s easier to use so they can spend more time advancing standards support.

          September 12th, 2010 at 01:48

  2. Jim

    I do agree with Shmerl that OpenGL should be used across all platforms (since it is available to all). Perhaps they discovered that D2D gets better performance in Win?

    Also, is OpenGL enabled yet or will it be in a future beta?

    September 7th, 2010 at 14:37

  3. o0.c

    Is there a frame limit?

    September 7th, 2010 at 15:12

  4. Thales

    On Windows, video card drivers have defective OpenGL support, leading to poor performance or stability problems AFAIK.

    September 7th, 2010 at 15:26

  5. Jonathan

    Hardware acceleration is great, although I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out yet that after enabling D2D font rendering looks absolutely horrific. Fonts seem to have no sharpness to them.

    September 7th, 2010 at 16:57

    1. voidmind

      Maybe they enabled ClearType? Hopefully it can be disabled and the 2D acceleration is not dependant on ClearType being used because it makes fonts look awful (assuming this is what’s causing your font to look like that).

      September 9th, 2010 at 13:08

      1. Jonathan

        ClearType is enabled by default on modern versions of Windows, and in Vista and 7 the default fonts are specifically hinted for ClearType. So, in short, ClearType is enabled by default and looks fine whereas the fonts rendered by Direct2D look over-antialiased and horrific.

        September 9th, 2010 at 14:43

        1. voidmind

          Ah so that’s (the fonts) why it look so horrible on XP then. Use of ClearType in IE8 on XP must be responsible for a lot of people switching browsers.

          September 11th, 2010 at 08:31

      2. Matthias

        I agree:
        I’m seeing blurred/unsharp fonts in Ff4 B6 with HW accelation enabled (on Win7 64bit, nVidia GeForce 9300M GS, Aero Glass enabled).
        Both the text on the chrome (addressbar, tab titles) and on the actual webpages is affected. But the problem is worst on the chrome. It’s almost hurting my eyes!

        I think the problem I’m seeing is being described here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=594325
        I thing this should be a blocking bug for Ff4 final…

        September 17th, 2010 at 08:54

  6. Silvio Sousa Cabral

    Will this feature be available in Macs? Using QuartzGL?

    September 7th, 2010 at 18:21

  7. Enigmatic

    The hardware acceleration seems to be speeding up page rendering. However, the font rendering is simply horrible. The menus, tab text, down to font on various web pages. As the result, I have noticed some CSS rendering issues on several websites.
    I have returned to FF3 as the result.

    September 7th, 2010 at 19:01

  8. kripken

    > after enabling D2D font rendering looks absolutely horrific. Fonts seem to have no sharpness to them.

    Hmm, maybe D2D for fonts should be turned on only when the text is moving (and sharpness not noticeable), and turned off when static?

    September 7th, 2010 at 20:09

  9. Kris

    OpenGL is not really equivalent to Direct2D. It is suitable for things like blending, scaling and transforms as mentioned in the compositing paragraph, but it doesn’t provide things like 2D shapes, gradients, strokes, path operations, e.t.c. These can be built on top of OpenGL similarly to how Direct2D is built on top of Direct3D however some aspects are quite complex to do entirely on the GPU and there aren’t many libraries that do this. I’m guessing the available implementations for OpenGL are not mature enough or otherwise unsuitable at the moment.

    September 7th, 2010 at 20:19

  10. Hyunkle64

    Opera faster than FF on my XP computer …

    September 8th, 2010 at 00:09

  11. kenton

    I’m stuck at 7 fps with the beta. What gives?

    September 8th, 2010 at 00:27

    1. ComfyNumb

      Stuck at 7 fps? What hardware do you have and is it beta 5 that you are using? Go into tools/options/advanced and see if Use hardware acceleration is ticked.. It was with my setup by default.. If your hardware does not support dx10 then im not sure if it would work.. Some one correct me if im wrong…

      September 8th, 2010 at 08:40

      1. ComfyNumb

        Yes if you do not have windows 7/vista, firefox4 beta 5 and a dx10 video card I think your outa luck. If we are talking about a windows based machine.

        September 8th, 2010 at 08:45

        1. Frank

          Which is kind of a buzz kill considering that there’s a lot of people that haven’t upgraded, and that XP is still supported last I checked.

          Making a feature basically Windows only and leaving out that many machines seems a bit short sighted. Sure it’s going to involve OpenGL for other platforms eventually, but it’s still sort of a buzzkill.

          September 11th, 2010 at 17:19

  12. kuranes

    What’s the state of hardware accelerated video decoding ? is it planned ?

    For instance, Flash player 10.1 lets user play HD video on their browser whereas firefox HTML5 video seems to use only CPU ?

    2 video (2 visibility none + cropped drawimage() on canvas ) use 50% of a big quad core. There’s a lot of room for optimisation there (using GPU for decoding (ask nvidia/amd help), decoding only what is really drawn…)

    Btw, if canvas is being accelerated now or in the near future does that mean we have to optimise GPUCPU transfer to reduce bottleneck (caching as texture rather than drawing/uploading each frame, use atlas textures, etc ?)

    September 8th, 2010 at 00:58

  13. jeppe

    Games -> Windows + Web :)

    September 8th, 2010 at 02:13

  14. Paul Rouget

    Direct3D is more reliable on Windows than OpenGL usually. Also, for WebGL we use OpenGL if available.

    About QuartzGL (hw accel on Mac), we don’t think activating it now is a good idea (since it’s not activated by Apple themselves for Safari).

    September 8th, 2010 at 02:34

  15. Dionte

    This is really nice on a pc, once it’s enabled on mac, it might replace safari for me.

    September 8th, 2010 at 07:42

  16. John

    I’m getting 3fps with Firefox 4 beta 5, but 15 fps with Opera 10.61. Since the system is using an integrated DX9 GPU on Windows 7×64, I’m guessing Opera is using hardware acceleration and Firefox is not.

    September 8th, 2010 at 07:54

  17. Alex

    Same pc, same resolution:

    FPS Test:
    – FF Beta 5: 8 FPS
    – Chrome 7 dev: 10 FPS
    – IE 9 preview: 27 FPS

    Did I miss some configuration?

    September 8th, 2010 at 08:02

  18. Kobold Avenger

    I’m at about 7 fps with vista, a quad core, and an nVidia 9000 series card which I forgot the exact model at the moment.

    September 8th, 2010 at 10:12

  19. eric

    This beta is a complete disaster. Videos look extremely strange and the fonts makes it hard to read… What are you doing??

    September 8th, 2010 at 11:46

  20. A

    Wow, a whopping 2 FPS (and an unresponsive desktop for several minutes).

    For the record: Fedora 13 64bit, intel e8500, radeon 4850, open source radeon drivers, compositing enabled.

    September 8th, 2010 at 17:06

  21. Jeff

    I had to disable it. Fonts looked horrible!

    September 8th, 2010 at 17:57

  22. Neeraj

    I am getting 90FPS with Windows 7, Sony Vaio, 3gb ram and 1gb video card. How to activate Compositing acceleration as you mentioned its not enabled by default. I wanna give a try to use the GPU fullest with Firefox Beta 5.

    September 8th, 2010 at 18:28

  23. pablo

    2 fps with chrome 6

    12 fps with chromium 7

    2006 Asus Laptop. XP SP3, Intel T5500 1.66Ghz Core2Duo, nVidia Go 7300

    September 9th, 2010 at 04:31

  24. Jarek

    Firefox 4 very very slow browser, slower than Firefox 3.6.
    There’s something going wrong.

    September 9th, 2010 at 10:48

  25. Bedna

    Do anything decent and not crappy OpenGL and D3D, OpenGL is not enough?

    September 9th, 2010 at 13:03

  26. theSAiNT

    I agree jonathan. I’ve turned off hardware acceleration because the fonts look extremely anti aliased and lacking in sharpness.

    September 9th, 2010 at 15:39

  27. Andir

    40fps – i7-930@2.8Ghz – ATI 5870

    September 9th, 2010 at 22:31

  28. cinqmars

    tried to help you on my mac os x 10.6 macbook pro,
    but FF4 Beta 5 just refuses to open Mozilla AddOns

    September 10th, 2010 at 04:12

    1. voidmind

      If you’re talking about the green button to install the addon, it didn’t work for me either (Win7). Just right click the button, choose “copy link target” and paste it in the URL bar (and press enter of course). That worked for me.

      September 11th, 2010 at 08:27

  29. LG

    I get 7fps at work.

    September 10th, 2010 at 05:21

  30. TIMBO

    The update is wrecking havoc on my windows 7 ultimate. The browser keeps CRASHING and I’ve had to resort back to the enemy!

    September 10th, 2010 at 06:07

  31. Style Thing

    So for Windows XP (50% of OS-share) we’ll have only one subset of acceleration, or it’s not a final yet?

    September 10th, 2010 at 22:00

  32. hAl

    Why not try to get 3D support in W3C’s Canvas or SVG in stead of supporting WebGL

    September 11th, 2010 at 00:50

  33. neerajvohra

    Why I am the only one getting 90FPS ? I don’t have a high configuration system as posted above, and I have enabled the accelerations. When starting the Firefox, it takes 30 secs or more but then everything going so smooth and the tabs are working very fast.

    September 11th, 2010 at 06:38

  34. tre

    94 fps
    i7 920 at 3ghz, 3g ram, gtx 260

    September 11th, 2010 at 09:10

  35. 94Fleetwood

    64 FPS – Firefox 4 Beta5
    14FPS – Opera 10.62

    Windows 7 Ultimate
    Dell Studio 1535
    Intel Core2 Duo
    3GB
    ATI Radeon 3450 Mobility
    ATI Catalyst 10.8 Drivers

    September 11th, 2010 at 12:09

  36. Corné

    Installing the hardware acceleration platform update for Windows 7 improved the quality of (font) rendering for hardware acceleration with Firefox 4, restoring ClearType alike quality. You can download the update at Microsoft download:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2028560

    September 11th, 2010 at 12:37

    1. Matthias

      I installed the hotfix but it doesn’t seem to help in my case (on Win7 64bit, nVidia GeForce 9300M GS, Aero Glass enabled).
      Both the text on the chrome (addressbar, tab titles) and on the actual webpages is affected. But the problem is worst on the chrome. It’s almost hurting my eyes!

      I think the problem I’m seeing is being described here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=594325
      I thing this should be a blocking bug for Ff4 final…

      September 17th, 2010 at 08:58

  37. nemo

    73 FPS, Firefox nightly, Ubuntu Linux 10.04
    nvidia graphics card, running the nvidia driver.

    Thanks Mozilla for not just supporting Windows and Mac!

    (or, like Microsoft, only Vista+)

    September 11th, 2010 at 16:43

  38. simmo

    With FF 4.05b: 98 fps
    Chrome 6: 4 fps
    Internet Exploder 8: Error on Page (-.-)

    This is with a Q6600 (not that processor will affect graphic acceleration) and a nVidia 9800 GT.

    September 11th, 2010 at 17:13

  39. borya

    over 90FPS.
    and i dont know if my hardware acceleration was enabled or not, because i just installed my beta5 just now.
    and my hardware is not so much extreme as all the other posts above
    core2duo P8600 2.4ghz
    3gb ddr2 ram
    mobility radeon hd3650
    loving the new fox
    PS) i cant even run the test under ie8.

    September 12th, 2010 at 02:29

  40. Tip

    I believe Direct 3D and Direct 2D were preferred in Windows over standard OpenGL due to the fact that, starting with Windows Vista, Windows no longer has native OpenGL support. The current implementations of the OpenGL for those systems are of the sole responsibility of each GPU manufacturer and are distributed within their own card drivers.

    This gives leeway to broken OpenGL support or no support at all in some systems.

    September 12th, 2010 at 04:16

  41. Ryan

    89 FPS, AMD Phenom II X4 B50 3.4ghz, ATI HD5770, 6GB ram, Win7 64-bit

    September 12th, 2010 at 10:10

  42. exaslave

    99FPS with beta5 and acceleration enabled, 12FPS with it disabled and last 11FPS in Firefox 3.6.8 but some fonts were horrible in the beta with acceleration enabled as others mentioned before.

    Intel E2160 3.6Ghz – 9600 GT

    September 12th, 2010 at 13:51

  43. Fry-kun

    Fedora 13, ATI x1400 with open source driver: no acceleration in the demo, 0-2FPS at best. GrafxBot says “Display Drivers: Software Rasterizer (Mesa Project)” :(

    September 12th, 2010 at 16:46

  44. Fry-kun

    update: I ran it in a wrong mode (“su -” to a test user), so direct rendering was affected. GrafxBot now says ” Display Drivers: Mesa DRI R300 (RV515 7145) 20090101 TCL DRI2 (DRI R300 Project)” though the stress test is still running at same speed. Using MOZ_ACCELERATED=11 doesn’t allow firefox to run at all (it crashes), so I guess I’ll keep waiting :|

    September 12th, 2010 at 17:06

  45. Dillon

    Opera hasn’t implemented GPU acceleration in public builds yet. It’s just faster at drawing with the CPU than other browsers. Sometimes significantly faster.

    September 12th, 2010 at 23:19

  46. SarahC

    Oh dear!

    Firefox 4, Beta 5 has killed the hardware acceleration for my computer. It’s like it isn’t running with it any more.

    Also – on stress tests, the CPU doesn’t get about 60% utilisation.

    CSS rotating and scaling is almost back to where un-accelerated FF 3 is!
    http://untamed.co.uk/cssStress.htm

    September 13th, 2010 at 11:23

  47. alex-the-cat

    91fps w/acceleration on
    i7-920 2.66ghz, 6gb ram, Nvidia 9800gtx
    Vista x64 SP2

    September 13th, 2010 at 13:40

  48. Petar Velkovski

    89 fps
    Core2Duo E8400 3GHz, 2GB RAM, NVidia GT240
    Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick beta), with proprietary NVidia drivers

    September 13th, 2010 at 23:56

  49. Petar Velkovski

    4fps in Chrome on the same computer. Tested on Firefox 4.0 beta 5

    September 14th, 2010 at 00:17

  50. Petar Velkovski

    My previous comment sounds weird. So:
    89 fps Firefox 4.0 beta 5
    4 fps Google Chrome 6.0

    September 14th, 2010 at 00:21

  51. Alex

    Computer: Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.33 GHz, Intel GMA 3100 graphics.

    http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/
    FF 4 beta 5: ~7 fps
    Chrome 7 beta: ~12 fps

    http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/FishIE%20tank/Default.html
    50 fish

    FF 4 beta 5: ~11 fps
    Chrome 7 beta: ~16 fps

    That is a disaster for FF! On my computer Chrome 7 is 45% to 71% faster than FF 4 beta 5!
    How can this be? I thought hardware acceleration on my old GMA 3100 wasn’t possible on Chrome and FF but somehow Chrome is way faster!

    September 14th, 2010 at 10:36

    1. Fikret

      Have you tried Firefox 4.0 Beta 6? I am getting 80FPS in FF, and ~20 in Chrome 7 beta…

      September 15th, 2010 at 05:49

    2. Caspersky

      Have you tried to turn on hardware acceleration in FF?

      September 19th, 2010 at 15:14

  52. Iksf

    Getting 117 FPS, Gentoo x86_64, latest nvidia beta blobs, great work! :)

    September 14th, 2010 at 16:56

  53. RyanDox

    89 fps

    the only problems I’ve experienced is FF 4 beta 5 not responding for a couple of annoying seconds at start up with GPU acceleration enabled. problem solved when disabled. weird…

    Intel E2200
    3GB of RAM
    Nvidia 9500GT | forceware 258.96
    windows 7 ultimate x64

    September 14th, 2010 at 23:51

  54. Anonymous

    Psycheldic Browsing (IE test drive)
    Minefield 4.0b7pre: 1769 revolutions per min
    Chrome 6: 4 revolutions per minute.
    Awesome work with the acceleration!

    September 15th, 2010 at 03:40

  55. Epicanis

    I’m curious why the “What’s New” page implies that the hardware acceleration is “Windows Only”…

    “Latest News
    Accelerating Graphics (Windows only)

    Experience super-fast graphics acceleration with Direct2D, now enabled by default, on DirectX 10 supported hardware.”

    Is it just that only the Windows® DirectX™ acceleration is “newsworthy”?

    P.S. PLEASE tell your web developers that “+” is a valid character in an email address!

    September 15th, 2010 at 07:38

  56. Kobold Avenger

    I redid the test again with beta 6 and updated drivers from nVidia for my geForce 9500 GS on 64-bit vista, and finally got 90 FPS.

    September 15th, 2010 at 08:53

  57. Jkasten

    Only DirectX 10? Will this ever work on xp then?

    September 15th, 2010 at 10:27

  58. Ree

    Soo.. I realize Direct2D isn’t available in Linux. But I see some of you get 60fps+ on Linux.. I get 6. What am i going wrong here?
    I’m running Ubuntu 10.04 on a 2.4Ghz c2d with 4Gb RAM and a Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M on proprietary drivers (256.53).

    September 15th, 2010 at 11:16

  59. exaslave

    Performance dropped from 99 to 95FPS here with beta 6.

    September 15th, 2010 at 15:09

  60. Thomas

    6 fps in Mozilla demo due to hardware acceleration not working on dx9 gpu.
    However the new Internet Explorer 9 Beta1 beats Firefox 4 Beta6 by 900% with 60fps.

    September 15th, 2010 at 16:48

  61. Scott

    Same very slow start with acceleration on that another mentioned.

    With acc on 85FPS (startup time ~ 11 seconds)
    With acc off 6fps (startup time < 2 seconds)

    The perceived experience of browsing normal web pages is identical (so do the fonts for that matter) – therefore I'm running with acceleration off, because it's a net negative.

    Win7 Pro 64bit AMD Athlon X2, 4Gb ram, Nvidia GTX 250

    September 17th, 2010 at 07:57

  62. Cary

    For those of you who are experiencing h/w accelerated crashing with Nvidia cards (G210 here) under Windows 7, try the new Nvidia beta driver: 260.63. I’ve not had a single crash since updating.

    September 19th, 2010 at 10:30

  63. Santiago

    100FPS!! firefox b6 on windows 7 ultimate x64 on a pentium dual core e5300 oc’ed from 2.6 to 3.47Ghz 4GB DDR2 1066 and a stinky ATI Radeon HD 4650 DDR2 128bit Stock

    i wonder how many fps would get a 5970 or asus ares coupled with a core i7 980x…

    September 19th, 2010 at 13:28

  64. Brandon

    I have a 7900 GT nvidia with directx 9 hardware support. Are you telling me that firefox will not support dx9, when ie does support it?

    on win7x64

    FF 4b6 : 5fps
    IE9 : 60fps

    September 19th, 2010 at 13:55

    1. Thomas

      Exact same concern I have.
      I got a 7800 GTX:
      FF4b6: 6fps
      IE9: 60fps

      IE9 is 900% faster than FF4b6 and I don’t think we’re the only ones out there with outdated graphics cards not supporting dx10.

      September 21st, 2010 at 03:04

  65. abral

    I run the test (http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/) in Firefox 4 Beta 6, in IE9, and in Chromium 7. These are the results:
    Firefox 4 Beta 6 – 91 FPS
    IE9 – 60 FPS
    Chromium 7 – 17 FPS
    Great!

    September 19th, 2010 at 14:57

  66. Smith

    I installed it and click the button, bu no response at all.

    firefox 4 beta 7 pre, debian sid.

    September 19th, 2010 at 22:49

  67. Smith

    59 fps beta 7 prev debian sid

    Display controller: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02).

    With cairo 1.8.10, it is 63 fps. After I installed cairo-1.9.14 with “enable-gl”,
    it became 59 fps. woow

    September 20th, 2010 at 12:36

  68. Anthony Oliver

    99 FPS on windows 7 ultimate x64. 3Gb Ram. SSD.

    September 20th, 2010 at 21:34

  69. ryanox

    re-run the test…

    FF4b6: 90 FPS
    IE9 beta: 60 FPS

    looks like IE got it locked to 60 FPS no matter how powerful your hardware are. I wasn’t convinced yet, so I tried the speed reading test from microsoft http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/SpeedReading/default.html.

    and for the result, IE9 beta still got it smooth sailing @60 FPS, while FF4b6 left behind laggy @33FPS

    win7 ultimate x64
    intel E2200
    Nvidia 9500 GT | forceware 260.63 beta
    3 GB of RAM

    September 21st, 2010 at 04:04

  70. Petar Velkovski

    68 fps
    Core2Duo E8400 3GHz, 2GB RAM, onboard Intel GMA4500
    Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick beta)
    I had to disable Compiz!
    The test still showed 68fps with Compiz enabled, but the display wasn’t updated that fast. Didn’t have this problem with the nVidia test I did (and reported) previously.

    September 21st, 2010 at 04:45

  71. Petar Velkovski

    Just visited Microsoft’s IE9 promotional website.
    The website link is http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/.

    There is a videos where IE9 beta is compared to Firefox 4 beta 5, and of course Firefox fails miserably compared to IE9.
    The website they use to compare IE9 to other leading web browsers is:
    http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

    The good news, for us Internet users, and most certainly for the web developers, is that Microsoft finally decided to follow the web standards, so all the tests work perfectly well on Firefox 4 beta6. O.K I didn’t try every single test, but from the ones I did, only one didn’t work ,because Firefox doesn’t have a support for playing mp3 files.

    The bad news, for Microsoft that is, contrary to their video I saw on the first link, Firefox performs excellent. And they somehow limit the number of frames that can be displayed in most of their tests. (60 fps in my case, probably because my LCDs refresh rate is 60 Hz). I thought it was illegal to make false statements against competitors products, at least as far as i know, it is illegal in my country.

    Since I don’t have Microsoft Windows, only Linux, it would be interesting to make those tests on a Windows platform and compare Firefox 4 vs. IE9.

    And for the love of god, change the information on the Mozilla’s Firefox 4 beta webpage that only Windows users will get hardware acceleration! Form what i can see on my computer, that’s not true :)

    September 23rd, 2010 at 02:59

  72. Leandro Santiago

    So which 2d acceleration method are you going to use on Linux and Mac? Xrender on Linux?

    In my pc I use ubuntu 10.04 32 bits and a ATI Radeon HD3200 with the lastest proprietary driver and Firefox 4b7 is doing 2fps. Even with the open source driver fps is low. Both Opera 10.62 and Chromium 7 do 6fps in this same machine and OS.

    in my machine the new layers system works quite fine, although in youtube hd videos (720) some frames are showed out of order. But it runs very fast :-)

    When do you pretend to implement 2d acceleration on Linux and Mac?

    September 26th, 2010 at 19:58

  73. Maximi89

    http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/
    Firefox 4.0B6pre Linux Radeon HD3200M RADEON DRIVER.
    1 ~ 3 FPS

    September 27th, 2010 at 22:52

  74. Maximi89

    Google Chrome are more fast, but have a worst image quality than Mozilla… that way they get the speed…
    With Chrome 2~3FPS
    Firefox 1~2FPS

    September 27th, 2010 at 22:59

  75. navidDragon

    i tested the firefox 4 and chrome on my laptop with Geforce 9300M SG. windows 7.

    firefox 4: 12 FPS
    chrome 7.0: 17 FPS

    September 28th, 2010 at 04:02

  76. Yaro Kasear

    Ih good, for some reason everywhere else I read insisted the hardware acceleration was only for Windows users.

    As a Linux user I’d kill for hardware accelerated Firefox. Now, if only Mozilla could make Firefox much less of a memory hog… After a while of me using Firefox on Linux it can get up to using 250 MiB of RAM or more. That’s more than X itself, and is really unacceptable for a web browser.

    September 28th, 2010 at 14:16

  77. Yaro Kasear

    Oh, and one last thing, why use XRender instead of OpenGL for content in Firefox? XRender is pretty basic for a hardware acceleration means. It works with plenty of drivers, sure, but it lacks a lot of things OpenGL can do for rendering content to make it faster AND look that much better.

    September 28th, 2010 at 14:18

  78. Cyberwizzard

    I’m running beta 6 on Gentoo 64-bit with NVIDIA binary drivers for my GF8600 and I get 3 fps with the demo. I’ve tried all sorts of things including setting an environment variable called MOZ_ACCELLERATED to 1, 11 and 0 – nothing changed.

    So how does one enable the OpenGL accelleration under linux?

    September 29th, 2010 at 02:29

  79. abral

    I run the test with Linux (Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Nvidia GeForce GT 230 with proprietary drivers, Intel Core2 Quad 2,5Ghz), I get 85 FPS, so hardware acceleration seems to work!
    However the images don’t rotate really smoothly.

    September 29th, 2010 at 16:51

  80. abral

    I’ve tried also the tests at http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/.
    There is a difference between Firefox for Windows (beta 6) and Firefox for Linux (beta 7). Under Windows you can get better results, when will we see full hardware acceleration for Linux? I can’t wait anymore!

    P.S.: However between Firefox beta 6 for Windows and IE9 beta there aren’t many differences, according to Microsoft’s tests!

    September 29th, 2010 at 16:58

  81. wdfcrtssdywz

    Mac OS X 64-bit 2.4 GHz C2D Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT

    Minefield 4.0b6pre: 2 FPS
    Safari Version 5.0.2 (6533.18.5): 4 FPS
    Google Chrome (6.0.472.59): 4 FPS
    Opera 10.60 build 8402: 11 FPS

    September 29th, 2010 at 17:41

  82. thana54

    Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz w/ X4500MHD
    debian amd64 unstable with xserver-xorg-video-intel 2.12.0+shadow-2 from experimental:
    HWACCEL test.
    iceweasel 3.6.10: 33 fps
    firefox 4.0b7pre: 40 fps

    debian 64 unstable with xserver-xorg-video-nouveau (0.0.16-git20100825+390f1c8-1)+ dri-experimental:
    iceweasel 3.6.10: 1 fps
    firefox 4.0b7pre: 1 fps

    September 30th, 2010 at 08:49

    1. thana54

      Athlon X2 240 @ 2.0GHz + geforce 8200 for config #2.

      September 30th, 2010 at 08:50

  83. portets

    i also really want to know why linux isn’t mentioned as having hardware acceleration..

    ubuntu 10.04 64bit core 2 duo 2.0ghz 9600m gs512

    firefox 4 b7pre: 55 fps
    chromium 7 : 19 fps

    October 1st, 2010 at 02:29

    1. portets

      with compositing enabled

      firefox 4 b7pre: 42 fps

      but it looked more like 10 fps

      October 1st, 2010 at 02:35

  84. maximi89

    Guys, remember to put:

    Operating System
    Web Browser
    Video Drivers
    FPS

    October 1st, 2010 at 12:19

  85. Maximi89

    13FPS Windows XP
    Nvidia Geforce 7300LE

    October 1st, 2010 at 20:40

  86. Maximi89

    Firefox 4.0 Beta7

    October 1st, 2010 at 20:45

  87. peter

    Sony vaio vpcw21s1e

    3 frames p /sec

    hahahaha

    still firefox portable is way faster then the 3 version, i miss the shortcut icons i had in the previous version will they come back ?

    October 2nd, 2010 at 04:33

  88. 3650agp

    3650agp p4 3G
    full screen with F11 @2048*1152
    first test:80fps
    second test:100fish,40fps.lower fish tops at 60fps-screen refresh

    October 2nd, 2010 at 05:00

  89. 3650agp

    w7,ff 4beta7.
    interacts poorly with desktop environement.

    October 2nd, 2010 at 05:02

  90. 3650agp

    Psycheldic Browsing (IE test drive):1442(with F11)-seems to me maximum score of 1769 is too low for normal size window.
    the second step-halucinogenic:599

    the most impressing thing in normal browsing is the smooth scroll working 100%(opera,too…)

    October 2nd, 2010 at 07:30

  91. Iksf

    Just tried with a very recent chromium compile, pulled a massive 219 FPS, gotta give them credit

    thats running chromium with –enable-accelerated-2d-canvas

    October 2nd, 2010 at 18:11

    1. Leandro Santiago

      Hey, man. When did the chromium developers developed this feature? In my chromium 7, in the same ubuntu 10.04 with a radeon hd3200 where firefox 4.0b7 does 2fpx and chromium (without this parmeter) does 6fps, now with this parameter in command-line it (chromium) does 45fps! woow! Very fast!

      October 2nd, 2010 at 20:51

      1. Iksf

        i7 @ 1.6 ghz nvidia 330M, i dont know what the chromium developers are doing but its insane. Slower than Firefox on Windows though but Chromium linux is a solid 100fps faster than anything else around for me O.o

        October 4th, 2010 at 10:52

  92. Anonymous

    3 fps @ Pentium D 820 2.8, Radeon X1600XT, XPSP3, FF 4.0b6

    October 3rd, 2010 at 04:52

  93. anonymous

    omg please post details about your systems as they said before:
    CPU
    VIDEO CARD
    MOTHERBOARD
    not just video card or as i saw just a notebook model
    2nd: do NOT i repeat DO NOT put tests using windows xp, off course you’ll get very slow fps since windows xp doesn’t have Direct2d and it’s limited to directx 9, either linux or windows vista and higher are fine, if you have windows xp stick with the old firefox and the old internet explorer too.
    another tip if you are having trouble with the beta 6 or 7 try grabbing the nightly builds it updates everyday and for example yahoo mail’s new interface now works

    October 3rd, 2010 at 07:25

  94. onandon

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 / 2.26 GHz
    GFX: Intel GMA X4500HD

    Both FF4 beta 6 and IE 9 beta get about 60 fps on the mozilla hardware stress test.

    However, IE 9 destroys firefox in some of the microsoft tests (speed reading IE9 gets 60 fps, FF4 gets 3 fps) and is slightly better in some of them (psychedelic browsing IE9 gets 1815 rev/sec, FF4 gets 1171 rev/sec). Anyone know why this is?

    Also, first time load of FF4 beta is excruciatingly slow and remains laggy for ~30 sec after loading, when opening menus and highlighting buttons etc

    October 4th, 2010 at 09:20

  95. nerach

    On Debian with FF4.0b7pre it’s Very slow 7 to 8 FPS….

    With a Phenom II x4 955 (3.2Ghz) and an ATI Radeon HD 4770

    October 6th, 2010 at 10:38

    1. THAC0

      I have a Phenon II X4 965 and a Radeon HD 5770 and I’m also getting 7 FPS despite the step up :<

      (Ubuntu 10.04 64bit, Firefox daily PPA using todays build).

      October 8th, 2010 at 18:24

  96. ant

    Gentoo x86-64, Radeon HD 4350 (OpenGL 2.0), Phenom II X4:

    Firefox 4.0b7pre gets 9 fps. The “Use hardware acceleration” box is checked.
    Chromium 7.0.536.2 gets 20 fps.

    October 9th, 2010 at 08:14

    1. ant

      And, I should add, running chromium with –enable-accelerated-2d-canvas gets 40fps there.

      October 10th, 2010 at 10:02

  97. Cary

    I don’t mean to be insulting, but with respect to Linux users, have you installed the third party ATI or Nvidia accelerated drivers?

    October 9th, 2010 at 18:46

    1. Leandro Santiago

      Yes, I’m aways using the lastest driver from ati site. Here, in a turion x2 dual core, with 3GB of ram and a ATI HD3200. I’m using ubuntu 10.04 and, while firefox gets only 4fps, chromium (now 8.0) can get (with the hardware acceleration enabled) 45 fps. In many tests from from Internet Explorer 9 test suite, chrome runs in full of speed, speccialy the psycodelic test :-)

      I’ve also tested this test in a machine with opensuse 11.3 and a nvidia serie 8 (I don’t remember the model) with the lastest proprietary driver and it gets only 7fps, but as the machine isn’t mine, I couldn’t install chromium there to do the tests :-(

      I think it happens because chromium doesn’t use xrender to accelerate 2d on Linux, and xrender isn’t well implemented in most proprietary drivers. The fglrx (from ati) driver is know to have a very poor performance with xrender.

      October 10th, 2010 at 05:53

  98. maximi89

    I don’t use propietary drivers, because opensource drivers have better performance in 2D, i don’t use more than that, so, i want performance :D

    October 9th, 2010 at 22:03

  99. anonymous

    linux users for christ sake listen to Cary USE proprietary drivers open source drivers miss much of the 3d thing on video cards
    and remember
    post motherboard, video card, OS, and processor
    just upgraded my computer gonna put up a score soon tho I’m running windows 7 but gonna try ubuntu 10.10 when it comes out
    keep up the good work and dont forget to put all the details about your systems you can use Everest or some system info tool if you don’t know your hardware
    ta ta

    October 9th, 2010 at 23:52

    1. ant

      No, I will NOT foul up my system with buggy proprietary drivers for one piece of software – a web browser at that! Every other OpenGL-using program on my system works fine. Google can figure out how to make a web browser run fast on sensible hardware, why can’t you?!

      Oh and “for christ sake”, use some punctuation please.

      October 11th, 2010 at 05:26

      1. Yaro Kasear

        My experience with the nVidia driver is not buggy at all. Not even close to buggy.

        And its support is way ahead of nv or Nouveau. WAY ahead. So far ahead, in fact, it’s the only driver for nVidia cards on Linux that most compositing window managers like Compiz or KWin give full support to without disabling a single plugin.

        I don’t use proprietary drivers for one program. In fact, I use them for my video card because they’re simply the only way to get my money’s worth out of a card I spent my hard-earned money on. None of the open source drivers for Linux for nVidia cards have the features or the quality I need.

        Also, the way you put it, “foul up my system with buggy proprietary drivers” suggests to me you hate those drivers PURELY for the fact they’re proprietary, which tells me you’re one of the whiny Stallmanist groups.

        News Flash: Proprietary software isn’t inherently evil or low-quality, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I use open source software because it’s generally superior to proprietary software. But I recognize that there’s nothing evil about it AND that there’s times where proprietary software is just plain BETTER than it’s open source “alternatives.” Flash and nVidia display drivers come to mind.

        Also, if you’re referring to Chrome, it STILL has yet to come to Linux. Chromium is NOT Chrome. Chromium is the web browser Chrome came from, not the other way around. And last I checked, neither did hardware acceleration for their pages.

        I think the FPS speeds of Firefox 4 would be improved if Mozilla ditched XRender on Linux and went ALL OpenGL, personally. Of course, this being open source, someone could easily write a patch for it and make it that way.

        October 14th, 2010 at 07:57

        1. Iksf

          2 problems

          Chrome is avaliable for Linux, prefer Chromium though
          Chrome and Chromium have optional hardware acceleration

          Also please dont be so fast to flame “stallmanist groups” theyv done a huge amount for Linux and open source

          October 18th, 2010 at 14:05

        2. ant

          You, sir, are hugely ignorant. Why are you even bringing nVidia into this? I said buggy proprietary drivers, not Bumpgate.

          Chromium on Linux doesn’t have hardware acceleration? Then why does Chromium 8.0.552, fullscreen at 1680×1050, get four times the framerate of Firefox with “hardware” rendering? I dread to think how unusably slow Firefox would become if I turned that off.

          October 19th, 2010 at 13:38

  100. maximi89

    [maximi89@gateway Proyectos_C_Linux]$ glxgears
    381 frames in 5.0 seconds = 75.878 FPS
    338 frames in 5.0 seconds = 67.528 FPS
    353 frames in 5.0 seconds = 70.441 FPS
    357 frames in 5.0 seconds = 70.808 FPS
    303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.428 FPS
    XIO: fatal IO error 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable) on X server “:0.0”
    after 3605 requests (38 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
    [maximi89@gateway Proyectos_C_Linux]$ glxgears -info
    GL_RENDERER = Software Rasterizer
    GL_VERSION = 2.1 Mesa 7.7.1-DEVEL
    GL_VENDOR = Mesa Project
    GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shading_language_120 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_shadow_ambient GL_ARB_sync GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_window_pos GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_logic_op GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_convolution GL_EXT_copy_texture GL_EXT_depth_bounds_test GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_paletted_texture GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_shared_texture_palette GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_subtexture GL_EXT_texture GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_rectangle GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_3DFX_texture_compression_FXT1 GL_APPLE_packed_pixels GL_APPLE_vertex_array_object GL_ATI_blend_equation_separate GL_ATI_envmap_bumpmap GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3 GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_ATI_fragment_shader GL_ATI_separate_stencil GL_IBM_multimode_draw_arrays GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_INGR_blend_func_separate GL_MESA_pack_invert GL_MESA_resize_buffers GL_MESA_texture_array GL_MESA_ycbcr_texture GL_MESA_window_pos GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_fragment_program GL_NV_fragment_program_option GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_point_sprite GL_NV_texture_env_combine4 GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_vertex_program GL_NV_vertex_program1_1 GL_OES_read_format GL_SGI_color_matrix GL_SGI_color_table GL_SGI_texture_color_table GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_border_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays
    332 frames in 5.0 seconds = 66.271 FPS
    326 frames in 5.0 seconds = 65.021 FPS
    337 frames in 5.0 seconds = 67.334 FPS
    328 frames in 5.0 seconds = 65.041 FPS

    without
    Option “RenderAccel” “True”
    on Xorg.conf

    October 10th, 2010 at 18:56

  101. maximi89

    Activating
    Option “RenderAccel” “True”
    on Xorg.conf, no improvements on firefox….

    [maximi89@gateway ~]$ glxgears -info
    GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI R600 (RS780 9612) 20090101 TCL DRI2
    GL_VERSION = 1.5 Mesa 7.7.1-DEVEL
    GL_VENDOR = Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_shadow_ambient GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_MESAX_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_window_pos GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_logic_op GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_convolution GL_EXT_copy_texture GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_subtexture GL_EXT_texture GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_rectangle GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_APPLE_packed_pixels GL_ATI_blend_equation_separate GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3 GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_ATI_separate_stencil GL_IBM_multimode_draw_arrays GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_INGR_blend_func_separate GL_MESA_pack_invert GL_MESA_ycbcr_texture GL_MESA_window_pos GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_vertex_program GL_OES_read_format GL_SGI_color_matrix GL_SGI_color_table GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_border_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays
    2805 frames in 5.0 seconds = 560.646 FPS
    1551 frames in 5.0 seconds = 310.101 FPS
    2753 frames in 5.0 seconds = 550.361 FPS
    2724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 544.689 FPS

    October 10th, 2010 at 21:11

  102. Leandro Santiago

    I’ve tested again with a i5 machine and 4GB of RAM, nvidia gt 240 (a high performance video board) and Kubuntu 10.10 with the lastest driver and Firefox got only 30fps (So I think it’s not accelerated).

    October 12th, 2010 at 19:43

    1. Dan

      Direct2d is only available on windows. Theres no full featured stable 2d acceleration on linux. Its actually much harder to write code to do the 2d stuff that the 3d stuff because your making texture not sampling them.

      November 15th, 2010 at 11:07

      1. Yaro Kasear

        Uh.

        OpenGL, Allegro, SFML, and SDL ALL offer fast and reliable 2D acceleration, what are you talking about? You must be using some poor drivers.

        November 16th, 2010 at 12:55

  103. Geob

    17FPS on the test

    % glxgears -info 19:28
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    GL_RENDERER = Mesa DRI R600 (RS880 9710) 20090101 x86/MMX+/3DNow!+/SSE2 TCL DRI2
    GL_VERSION = 2.0 Mesa 7.8.3
    GL_VENDOR = Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_shadow_ambient GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_MESAX_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_window_pos GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_logic_op GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_convolution GL_EXT_copy_texture GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_polygon_offset GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_subtexture GL_EXT_texture GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_rectangle GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_APPLE_packed_pixels GL_ATI_blend_equation_separate GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3 GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_ATI_separate_stencil GL_IBM_multimode_draw_arrays GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_INGR_blend_func_separate GL_MESA_pack_invert GL_MESA_ycbcr_texture GL_MESA_window_pos GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_vertex_program GL_OES_read_format GL_SGI_color_matrix GL_SGI_color_table GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_border_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays
    303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.486 FPS
    300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.991 FPS
    300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.990 FPS
    300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.990 FPS

    October 13th, 2010 at 10:42

  104. portets

    core 2 duo 2.0ghz
    gf 9600m gs 512mb
    video driver 256.52
    ubuntu 10.04 64bit
    firefox 4 b7pre: 55 fps

    video driver 260.19.06
    ubuntu 10.10 64bit
    firefox 4 b8pre: 53 fps

    all tests done in fullscreen at 1366×768
    the framerate is usually at 60-69 fps, but i get random pauses that temporarily bring my fps down to 26 for a half second, then go back up to the 40’s and 50’s.

    October 13th, 2010 at 19:28

    1. portets

      updated to r55929 and the random pauses are much less severe. now getting 57 fps

      same configuration as the second one above(260.19.06 9600m, 10.10).

      October 15th, 2010 at 23:12

  105. Matt McCann

    Ubuntu 10.04
    Firefox Nightly Build PPA

    CPU: AMD Athlon X2 245
    Video: NVIDIA Geforce 210
    Driver: 260 series for X-Swat PPa

    82 fps. Everything feels very smooth. I am very impressed with what I am seeing.

    October 15th, 2010 at 18:58

  106. Steven

    OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
    MEM: 4 GB
    CPU: Pentium Dual-Core T4300 @ 2,1 Ghz
    GPU: ATI Radeon HD4530, 512 MB, Catalyst 10.8

    IE9: 67 fps
    FF 4.0 beta 6: 86 fps
    Chrome 6.0: 2 fps
    Chrome 8.0 beta: 14 fps

    October 16th, 2010 at 07:20

  107. nbensa

    On Linux I get 60FPS with Firefox 3.6.10

    90 with Firefox 4b8.

    That’s 50% faster but I’m not impressed. I would expect at least 500% improvement using my GPU (NVidia GTS 250, 1GB)

    October 17th, 2010 at 11:33

    1. Mark

      1. FIrefox has been using XRender on linux for acceleration since Firefox

      2. This demo is capped at 90FPS

      3. The FPS boost is probably due to the newer version of Cairo used in Firefox 4 or the numerous other enhancements that have been made to performance

      October 17th, 2010 at 21:20

      1. Brad

        it’s not capped at 90, I just got 99 final score, with a peak of 100 in FF4.0b6

        IE9 Beta i get 70

        P4 HT 3.4Ghz
        Geforce GTX 280
        2 GbRam
        Windows 7 Ultimate

        October 28th, 2010 at 22:14

        1. freddy

          brad is correct. i get get 99-100 fps after repetitive tests on ff4.0B8

          amd athlon X2 250 regor 3.51ghz
          geforce 8800gt OC 700/1000/1805
          ddr 2 1066 4gb ram
          windows 7 ultimate x64

          January 9th, 2011 at 23:34

  108. Wes

    every day latest firefox trunk is faster
    effects introduced from first dev releases of ff3.7 are now really fast

    background gradiends
    borde radius
    transparency
    png 32
    are nearly perfect now

    i’m developing a webos and now i can use a modern skin

    a lot of compliments to the community

    go mozilla go

    October 18th, 2010 at 23:27

  109. Bla

    WARNING: Grafx Bot crashes Firefox 4.0 beta on Ubuntu 10.10 on startup.

    After installing the Grafx Bot extension, it is not possible to start Firefox 4.0 beta anymore because it crashes right away.

    Deleting the extensions via
    rm -rf .mozilla/firefox-4.0/extensions/grafxbot@mozilla.org/
    fixes the issue.

    00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)

    October 19th, 2010 at 01:05

    1. portets

      same here. grafx bot crashes the browser. ffb8pre ubuntu 10.10 64-bit. nvidia 9600m gs

      October 20th, 2010 at 18:19

  110. josaby

    6 fps. ;(

    October 21st, 2010 at 01:25

  111. Miroslav

    Ubuntu 10.10 celeron d 2.66ghz nvidia gt 210 :
    Firefox 3.6.10 20fps;
    Firefox 4b8 56fps;
    260 Latest driver from nvidia :)

    October 21st, 2010 at 06:27

  112. Aron Boss

    Ubuntu 10.10 64 bits Intel Core Extreme 3.06 Ghz dual
    Nvidia 260.19.06 driver
    firefox 4b8: 92 fps
    firefox 3.6.11: 67 fps

    October 25th, 2010 at 12:52

  113. Andrei M. Eichler

    I don’t know if it was caused by some recent minefield update, but my notebook uses a GeForce 8400M G, and until last week i got 48 FPS avg, now i get only 8~12 FPS.

    Using ubuntu 10.04 64 bits

    glxgears result :

    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    GL_RENDERER = GeForce 8400M G/PCI/SSE2
    GL_VERSION = 3.2.0 NVIDIA 195.36.24
    GL_VENDOR = NVIDIA Corporation
    GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_color_buffer_float GL_ARB_compatibility GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex GL_ARB_draw_instanced GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_half_float_vertex GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_seamless_cube_map GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_sync GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_compression_rgtc GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_multisample GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_texture_rg GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_window_pos GL_ATI_draw_buffers GL_ATI_texture_float GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_S3_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_bindable_uniform GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_Cg_shader GL_EXT_depth_bounds_test GL_EXT_direct_state_access GL_EXT_draw_buffers2 GL_EXT_draw_instanced GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXTX_framebuffer_mixed_formats GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB GL_EXT_geometry_shader4 GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_float GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_shader_objects GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_array GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object GL_EXT_texture_compression_latc GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_integer GL_EXT_texture_lod GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_shared_exponent GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_timer_query GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_KTX_buffer_region GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_conditional_render GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color GL_NV_copy_image GL_NV_depth_buffer_float GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_explicit_multisample GL_NV_fence GL_NV_float_buffer GL_NV_fog_distance GL_NV_fragment_program GL_NV_fragment_program_option GL_NV_fragment_program2 GL_NV_framebuffer_multisample_coverage GL_NV_geometry_shader4 GL_NV_gpu_program4 GL_NV_half_float GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_multisample_coverage GL_NV_multisample_filter_hint GL_NV_occlusion_query GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_parameter_buffer_object GL_NV_parameter_buffer_object2 GL_NV_pixel_data_range GL_NV_point_sprite GL_NV_primitive_restart GL_NV_register_combiners GL_NV_register_combiners2 GL_NV_shader_buffer_load GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_texture_barrier GL_NV_texture_compression_vtc GL_NV_texture_env_combine4 GL_NV_texture_expand_normal GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texture_shader GL_NV_texture_shader2 GL_NV_texture_shader3 GL_NV_transform_feedback GL_NV_vertex_array_range GL_NV_vertex_array_range2 GL_NV_vertex_buffer_unified_memory GL_NV_vertex_program GL_NV_vertex_program1_1 GL_NV_vertex_program2 GL_NV_vertex_program2_option GL_NV_vertex_program3 GL_NVX_conditional_render GL_NVX_gpu_memory_info GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SGIX_depth_texture GL_SGIX_shadow GL_SUN_slice_accum
    20367 frames in 5.0 seconds
    20384 frames in 5.0 seconds
    20402 frames in 5.0 seconds
    20444 frames in 5.0 seconds
    23868 frames in 5.0 seconds

    October 26th, 2010 at 10:54

  114. florin

    Too bad the extension is not available for FF4 beta6…..

    October 29th, 2010 at 09:08

  115. Xavier

    Tested with Ubuntu 10.04 and nvidia nonfree driver, only 5-9 FPS and CPU usage 100% (so hardware acceleration clearly isn’t enabled). There should be at least some minimal guidance on how to enable hw accel in Linux.

    $ glxgears -info
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    GL_RENDERER = GeForce 7300 GS/PCI/SSE2
    GL_VERSION = 2.1.2 NVIDIA 195.36.24
    GL_VENDOR = NVIDIA Corporation
    GL_EXTENSIONS = GL_ARB_color_buffer_float GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_half_float_vertex GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_window_pos GL_ATI_draw_buffers GL_ATI_texture_float GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_S3_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_Cg_shader GL_EXT_depth_bounds_test GL_EXT_direct_state_access GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_shader_objects GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_two_side GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_lod GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_timer_query GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_KTX_buffer_region GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color GL_NV_depth_clamp GL_NV_fence GL_NV_float_buffer GL_NV_fog_distance GL_NV_fragment_program GL_NV_fragment_program_option GL_NV_fragment_program2 GL_NV_framebuffer_multisample_coverage GL_NV_half_float GL_NV_light_max_exponent GL_NV_multisample_filter_hint GL_NV_occlusion_query GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil GL_NV_pixel_data_range GL_NV_point_sprite GL_NV_primitive_restart GL_NV_register_combiners GL_NV_register_combiners2 GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_NV_texture_barrier GL_NV_texture_compression_vtc GL_NV_texture_env_combine4 GL_NV_texture_expand_normal GL_NV_texture_rectangle GL_NV_texture_shader GL_NV_texture_shader2 GL_NV_texture_shader3 GL_NV_vertex_array_range GL_NV_vertex_array_range2 GL_NV_vertex_program GL_NV_vertex_program1_1 GL_NV_vertex_program2 GL_NV_vertex_program2_option GL_NV_vertex_program3 GL_NVX_conditional_render GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SGIX_depth_texture GL_SGIX_shadow GL_SUN_slice_accum
    6936 frames in 5.0 seconds
    6599 frames in 5.0 seconds
    6547 frames in 5.0 seconds
    6680 frames in 5.0 seconds
    7057 frames in 5.0 seconds
    6553 frames in 5.0 seconds

    October 31st, 2010 at 02:06

  116. дядя вася

    Win7SP1 Core2Duo 2.66 , ATI HD3850 , dd_ccc_10.10
    Firefox 4.0b6 – 92FPS

    October 31st, 2010 at 18:39

  117. kalou

    Snow Leopard 10.6.4
    CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
    RAM: 4Go
    Minefield 4.0b8pre (use hw accel when avail – activated)

    Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS – 512 Mo vram
    Driver: com.apple.nvidia.nv50hal (6.1.8)

    3 fps. :-( SO POOR PERFORMANCE .. Ready to help for tests !

    November 4th, 2010 at 00:26

    1. Raselin

      Same problem as kalou

      hwaccel works great in chrome just getting 3fps with ff 4 beta 6

      all my plugins are disabled anyone found a solution?

      November 4th, 2010 at 15:55

      1. Raselin

        Found a solution to my problem

        for windows vista

        you must have service pack 2 installed
        then update this file

        http://support.microsoft.com/kb/971512/

        Updates to DirectX to support hardware acceleration for 2D, 3D, and text-based scenarios

        worked for me

        November 4th, 2010 at 17:00

      2. kalou

        Hi Raselin,

        are you running windows and Leopard on the same box ?
        I’m posting my report today to the nightly-testers list .

        Kalou

        November 7th, 2010 at 04:46

  118. ant

    Today I finally caved and installed fglrx.

    Firefox gets a grand total of 10fps. Yep, that’s not a typo and the browser claims to have acceleration enabled. Compare that to my previous result on Chromium of 40fps on completely free software.

    For reference: Chromium now gets 66fps, but proprietary blobs being crap as they are, spits graphical corruption all over my screen in toggling fullscreen mode.

    November 9th, 2010 at 16:47

  119. Demon

    Here my result on:
    WinXP SP3
    AMD Athlon 2.4Ghz
    2GB DDR with Dual Channel
    GeForce 6200

    Firefox 3.6.12 – 6fps
    Firefox 4.0b6 – 3fps

    From new 4beta6 got slower results then in previuos version firefox, why?

    November 10th, 2010 at 00:04

  120. Ric

    Got 87 fps in nightly build.
    The latest IE9 Platform Preview got 60 fps. Interesting that Firefox is faster on this test but slower on the IE examples.

    November 10th, 2010 at 04:11

  121. SarahC

    Damn!

    Firefox Beta 7 STILL doesn’t use hardware acceleration on my GeForece 6800 GT.

    I’m probably going to have to download the source, hack the detection code, recompile, and release it as Firefox Hard! or something…. for everyone who knows their hardware supports acceleration, but isn’t detected properly.

    Meanwhile IE 9 beta is kicking arse on the hardware detection scene…

    November 10th, 2010 at 23:31

    1. Riboshom

      Same here, I can’t get it to work.
      Let’s hope it’ll be fixed in the next beta. In the meantime, I still have 10 FPS :/

      November 11th, 2010 at 13:54

  122. anatole

    win7 32bit
    i7 930 @ 2.94ghz
    ATI Radeon HD 5770 –
    100(!!!1) fps – yeah, hardware acceleration works!

    win XP sp3 (old notebook)
    celeron m @1.43 ghz
    ATI Radeon xpress 200m
    2 fps – oh, ….

    November 11th, 2010 at 02:27

    1. anatole

      Tested again, on ff 3.6.12
      17fps

      November 11th, 2010 at 07:54

  123. icepick314

    I’m only getting somewhere between 27-23FPS on FF4b7

    Win7 64bit
    Intel i7 Q720 1.60GHz
    8GB memory
    ATI Mobility Radeon 5870 4GB running 1980×1080

    November 11th, 2010 at 10:08

  124. Goffredo Marocchi

    My score is 3 FPS… :(.

    MacBook Pro:
    -CPU = Core 2 Duo 3.06 GHz
    -GPU = nVIDIA GeForce 9400M (active, I also have the 9600M on the system, but I am running with the 9400M on at the moment).
    -RAM = 8 GiB

    User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101111 Firefox/4.0b8pre

    Adapter Description: 0x22600,0x22600,0x20400
    Vendor ID: 2600
    Device ID: 2600
    GPU Accelerated Windows: 4/4 OpenGL (running the Grafx Bot test)

    November 12th, 2010 at 02:38

  125. Ryanox

    re-run the test:
    FF4b7 @90FPS
    FF4b6 @90FPS

    I think I noticed some improvement in this beta. I’ve tried to run IE9’s speed reading test on b7, and the result’s quite promising. Still running laggy @ 18-20FPS though, but It’s much better than FF4b6.IMHO.

    Win7 ultimate x64
    Intel E2200 @stock
    3GB of RAM
    Nvidia 9500 GT | forceware 260.99

    November 12th, 2010 at 20:13

  126. Brenno Machado

    Ow!!!!!!
    Core2Duo 2.0 Ghz
    4 GiB RAM
    Ubuntu 10.10
    SiS 667MX (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    682 frames in 5.0 seconds = 136.374 FPS
    649 frames in 5.0 seconds = 129.787 FPS
    684 frames in 5.0 seconds = 136.685 FPS
    627 frames in 5.0 seconds = 125.368 FPS
    702 frames in 5.0 seconds = 140.297 FPS

    O.o”

    November 12th, 2010 at 21:52

  127. kalou

    Just tried the latest update of Snow Leopard (10.6.5)
    CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
    RAM: 4Go
    Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS – 512 Mo vram
    Driver: com.apple.nvidia.nv50hal (6.1.8)

    Minefield 4.0b8pre (use hw accel when avail – activated) : 3 fps.
    Chrome 9.0.572.1 dev : 7 fps.
    Webkit 5.0.2 (6533.18.5, r71897): 15 fps.

    Is there a chance that FF4 final includes a faster hw accel for Mac OSX ?

    November 14th, 2010 at 03:56

  128. kanishka

    well i use window7 and opensuse side by side …
    System
    CPU : Intel Dual Core 1.6 ghz
    RAM : 3GB
    GPU : GTS 250 nvidia
    Firefox : 4.0b7pre

    on windows : 90fps
    on opensues : 30 fps …i am sure that GPU accleration in not that effective in linux …

    November 14th, 2010 at 10:51

  129. Zeke

    CPU: AMD 9950 Quad Core Processor, 2.6 GHz
    RAM: 4 gb
    OS: WIN 7 premium 64 bit
    Video: NVIDIA geforce 260 GTX
    Firefox, (Current Release?)

    November 14th, 2010 at 14:42

  130. Cary

    CPU: AMD Phenom II 945 X4
    RAM 4gb ddr3
    GPU: Nvidia GT 430
    Firefox latest nightly x64
    99fps

    November 15th, 2010 at 14:38

  131. Maximi89

    Using:
    Driver “radeon” opensource
    GL_RENDERER = Gallium 0.4 on AMD RS780
    GL_VERSION = 2.1 Mesa 7.10-devel

    getting worst quality than before… on Fedora 14, with drivers from rawhide or testing.

    November 16th, 2010 at 14:38

  132. Sil3nce

    OS: Vista Home Premium 32-bit
    Mem: 3GB
    CPU: AMD X2 4400 @ 2.2 Ghz
    GPU: Radion 3850 512MB
    Driver: Catalyst 10.11

    Opera: 13 fps
    FF 3.6: 7 fps
    FF 4b7: 90 fps

    November 23rd, 2010 at 01:39

  133. unbekrolli

    Karten-Beschreibung ATI Radeon HD 4600 Series
    Vendor-ID 1002
    Geräte-ID 9490
    Karten-Ram 512
    Karten-Treiber aticfx32 aticfx32 atiumdag atidxx32 atiumdva
    Treiber-Version 8.791.0.0
    Treiber-Datum
    Direct2D aktiviert true
    DirectWrite aktiviert true
    GPU-beschleunigte Fenster 2/2 Direct3D 10
    FPS 92
    fantastic for my old Grafic accelerator

    November 26th, 2010 at 06:56

  134. aiKOn

    Hi,
    My machine the best…

    FPS=6

    :D

    AMD Atlhon 2.8GHz
    1.2GB DDR Ram
    nVidia GeForce 6200 (128MB) 1280×1024
    Xubuntu 10.10 (x86)
    FF 4.0b7

    November 26th, 2010 at 12:28

  135. Indicquid

    Hi can anyone one help me as to why the new beta 4b7 has direct2d off on my netbook with a gma500 graphics chip and even enabling it manually still does nothing as it still shows up as false under “about:support” and pages stutter when scrolling

    November 28th, 2010 at 16:04

  136. Jon Randy

    I’ve got a laptop with intel 965 mobile graphics. I had to downgrade my intel driver for FF4 beta 7 to run at an acceptable speed (scrolling had got all jerky and slow). FF3.6 is fine. Problem with downgrading the gfx driver is webgl no longer works with HW acceleration and other apps on my system no longer work correctly. Is there a known issue with the drivers for this card? Is it going to be fixed? FF4 seems to be the only program I run that has issues with my GFX card

    November 29th, 2010 at 01:29

    1. Jon Randy

      The syptoms I see are identical to Indicquid above

      November 29th, 2010 at 01:31

      1. Jon Randy

        Win XP Pro I forgot to mention

        November 29th, 2010 at 01:40

  137. Indicquid

    OkayJon Randy the previous fire fox used to work good for me too but I’m using windows 7 home premium with the latest drivers for the gma 500 chipset not too sure what’s worng probably the beta itself

    November 30th, 2010 at 07:27

  138. Yiannis

    Impressive on my Linux x86_64 and an nvidia card, 96FPS instead of 25FPS of Firefox 3.6 and Chrome. Very nice!

    However on my Linux x86 laptop with an ATI FireGL and the xorg server it was so slow that I had to switch to console and kill it. I suspect that there are ways of setting up my server, but I cannot be bothered at the moment.

    When I read about the hardware acceleration I never expected support for Linux at this early stage. This was a great surprise, well done!

    December 1st, 2010 at 09:53

  139. Maximi89

    [maximi89@localhost /]$ glxgears -info
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    GL_RENDERER = Gallium 0.4 on AMD RS780
    GL_VERSION = 2.1 Mesa 7.10-devel
    GL_VENDOR = X.Org

    Nombre : mesa-libGL
    Arquitectura : x86_64
    Versión : 7.10
    Lanzamiento : 0.12.fc15

    Nombre : xorg-x11-drv-ati
    Arquitectura : x86_64
    Versión : 6.13.2
    Lanzamiento : 0.1.20101109git0c2834e67.fc15

    i get 3FPS with lasted drivers, but it’s weird, because i was obtaining 8FPS…

    December 1st, 2010 at 20:17

    1. some ninja dude

      also, ati user, you are getting shit fps cause you arent using catalyst. if you don’t mind proprietary drivers, download em from ati’s website and experience the smoothness that is smoother than a baby covered with a basic liquid.

      December 2nd, 2010 at 14:36

  140. some ninja dude

    here are my results: 56 fps on ff4 with ubuntu 10.10 with compiz turned off
    48 fps on ff3.6.12 with ubuntu 10.10 without compiz

    my specs: core 2 duo @ 1.83 ghz
    4 gigs 667 mhz ram
    intel gma965 gfx card
    kernel 2.6.36.1

    December 2nd, 2010 at 14:33

  141. maximi89

    HWAccel needs a version newer than 2.1 or 2.1, but it works poor with opensource drivers… all due the mesa drivers… a developer say mozilla hwaccel use complex opengl instructions… but 3 to 8 FPS are very poor performance… nouveau driver and radeon driver are the best of both in opensource quality…

    December 3rd, 2010 at 08:23

  142. Kerozin

    Supersmooth – 72 fps

    Just for comparison Chrome on same machine gets just 7 fps

    Celeron D 2.66@3.6Ghz
    Radeon HD2600 AGP
    Win7
    Latest available AGP hotfix Catalyst drivers w/o control center

    December 6th, 2010 at 13:08

  143. Vitali Ivan

    Seems to be working only with nvidia? i have intel HD4500 and im getting around 15fps, with IE9 im getting arount 50FPS. Hoping for improvments.

    December 7th, 2010 at 06:05

  144. Piotr

    Wow…
    Notebook (i3 370M + 3GRAM + ATI Mobility Radeon HD5145)

    Win7 64bit. + FF 4 beta7: 91fps (default installations – no tweaking)
    Win7 64bit + FF 3.6: 12fps

    On my older ThinkpadT42 (PentiumM 1500 + Radeon9600mobility + XP32bit): 3fps (without hw accel)…

    December 11th, 2010 at 02:34

  145. Andrei M Eichler

    For some unknown reason, since mid november minefield doesnt works anymore with hardware acceleration with my GPU, however cromium 10 works…

    December 13th, 2010 at 09:04

    1. Andrei M Eichler

      Problem fixed on beta 9

      December 15th, 2010 at 06:32

  146. ANIL KILIÇ

    OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
    MEM: 8 GB
    CPU: Intel Core i7 CPU M620 @ 2.67GHZ
    GPU: ATI Radeon HD5650, 1024 MB + 1024MB , Catalyst 10.11

    IE9: 60 fps
    FF 4.7 beta 99 fps
    Opera 11 : 18 fps

    December 17th, 2010 at 08:39

  147. Hank

    OS:Windows 7 32 bit
    Memory :4gb pc3-10666
    CPU: 3.1 ghz Phenom Dual Core
    GPU :ATI Sapphire 4850 1gb Catalyst 10.11

    Chrome 8 with acceleration enabled using about:flags in http and click on enable GPU accelerated Composting: 16fps on the stress test page

    FF 4.0b9pre beta i got 99 fps on the stress page
    Also on ie9 beta’s own test page with the fish tank i got 60fps on all amounts of fish except for 1000 fish shown swimming and went between 58 to 60 fps on that.

    Opera 11 I got 15fps

    IE9 Beta i uninstalled because bugs in it made my GTA 4 Game unstable and sometimes unable to start until i removed IE9 beta.So no test results for that.

    December 20th, 2010 at 20:44

  148. Joris

    Slow to a craw… using a fairly old grafics card
    (Gglxgears -info says eForce2 MX/AGP/SSE2/3DNOW!)

    Getting something like 1 FPS (totally ridiculous); with google chrome I get 12 FPS

    (Though I realize with this old card you might just not bother supporting it?)

    December 21st, 2010 at 15:19

  149. thinsoldier

    Chrome is still 3-5 frames per second faster without hardware acceleration.

    December 22nd, 2010 at 13:59

  150. Frantisek

    Cool. FF 4b8 mac mini intel graphic 1fps, safari 4 1fps :-)

    December 23rd, 2010 at 03:06

  151. Remzi

    HA sadly not work on my old ATI Radeon 9550 and nothing change to improve this.

    FF 4.0b9pre beta from 27.12.10 have only 3 fps :(
    Opera 11 – 12 fps

    I am disappointed

    Win Xp
    AMD Sempron 2.0 GHz
    1.2GB DDR Ram
    ATI Radeon 9550 (128MB) 1024×768
    ( Catalyst drivers 9.3 ) leatest which working good with my graphic card
    Latest Minefield

    December 27th, 2010 at 15:25

    1. Ben

      No aceleration for Win XP, only for Vista / 7.
      Not your Radeon’s fault

      January 5th, 2011 at 04:05

    2. Ismael

      Threee things,

      First you have Windows XP which dosen’t support much acceleration.

      Second You have a weak processor

      Third only 128MB of Ram are on the graphics card (if it’s AGP or regular PCI then it goes slower)

      January 25th, 2011 at 23:05

      1. Remzi

        You have only part of truth, because on different PC with Windows XP and integrated Intel graphic card (128MB of Ram) HA is working.

        In Troubleshooting Informations is wrote:
        GPU Accelerated Windows 1/1 Direct 3D

        and in Stress Test thouse PC have 22 Fps
        On my PC 3 Fps
        Thats really weird.

        Today I have new informations
        Direct2DEnabled Blocked on your graphics driver.
        Try updating your graphics driver to version 10.6 or newer.
        DirectWrite Enabled true (0.0.0.0)
        WebGL Renderer (WebGL unavailable)
        GPU Accelerated Windows 0/1

        I think the problem is only the drivers, but the latest does not work well with my Radeon.
        If I need to change PC specially for the browser?

        January 30th, 2011 at 13:19

    3. andeng

      sorry . no acceleration for windows xp

      February 12th, 2011 at 21:31

  152. nerach

    It’s a little bit better with the today build of Minefield (2010-12-28)

    Stress test go up to 12FPS instead of 8FPS before.

    December 28th, 2010 at 21:35

  153. Koersten

    Latest beta.
    Core i7 640 m
    geforce gt 330 m
    windows 7 64 bit

    —-> 99 fps

    it`s blazingly fast

    January 7th, 2011 at 17:47

  154. fabio

    92FPS with :
    – win 7 64bit
    – firefox 4 b8
    – core i7 920
    – 6GB of ram
    – nVidia geForce 8800GTS (320mb)

    January 10th, 2011 at 08:36

  155. Negi9

    Firefox 4 beta 9pre
    ATI HD 5750
    Firefox 4 : 91 fps
    Ie9 : 60 fps

    January 11th, 2011 at 04:31

  156. Leandro Santiago

    I tested again firefox4 b9pre in a c2duo with a integred intel video chip (Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965, via lspci) and open source driver. I’m using Ubuntu 10.10 32bit. The main memory is 1GB.

    Result: 54FPS.
    In chromium 10, I got 43FPS

    In firefox, when I enable the layer system, this number is 12FPS.

    In my notebook, which has a better hardware (Turion X2, Radeon HD 3200, 3GB RAM), firefox gets only 4FPS and chromium gets 17FPS.

    January 12th, 2011 at 08:18

    1. Leandro Santiago

      PS: I’m running Ubuntu Linux 10.10 32 bit and the same versions of chromium and firefox4 on both machines.

      January 15th, 2011 at 13:20

  157. Loris

    Firefox 64 bit 4beta10pre : 14fps
    Windows 7 64 bits with Optimus :-S

    January 15th, 2011 at 02:38

  158. erius

    Firefox 4 beta 9
    ATI Radeon HD5470
    Intel core i3 350m
    4 GB DDR3
    91 FPS

    January 15th, 2011 at 03:40

  159. Nicola

    62 fps

    notebook: core 2 duo p8600, 4 Gb ddr2, geforce 9600 gt 512 Mb.
    SO: gnu/linux (fedora 14 x64, kde)
    firefox 4 b9

    January 15th, 2011 at 06:05

  160. icepick314

    FF 4 b9 running on Windows 7 64bit
    Asus G73 laptop with
    ATI Mobility Radeon 5870
    Intel Core i7 1.6Ghz
    8Gb system memory

    22FPS

    is it the driver or is it the configuration?

    shouldn’t the frame rate be much higher than this with my laptop?

    can someone help?

    January 15th, 2011 at 15:57

  161. Janderi

    FF 4 b9 running on Windows 7 64bit
    AMD x240 3.1Ghz
    Nvidia 9800gtx+
    4Gb system memory

    99fps :)

    January 17th, 2011 at 06:26

  162. Finalzone

    Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
    AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+
    5GB DDR2-RAM
    Nvidia Geforce 8600 GTS
    91 FPS
    Anything that runs 60fps+ looks smooth, there will be no difference above 90+ fps.

    January 17th, 2011 at 12:04

  163. marcelo

    Windows 7 64bit
    Mozila 4b9
    Intel E8400
    HD 4850
    4Gb system memory

    100 fps, very good

    January 17th, 2011 at 13:42

  164. Alcarinque

    FF 4b9(mozilla build) running on Gentoo Linux amd64
    AMD Phenom II x6 2.8Ghz
    Nvidia 250 Gts
    4Gb Ram

    85fps

    January 17th, 2011 at 21:00

  165. Jennifer

    Why is linux being supported but not Windows XP?

    January 19th, 2011 at 02:14

    1. steve

      Linux is being regularly updated, current operating system.
      XP is nearly 10 years old, and even Microsoft will drop security updates in just a few years

      January 23rd, 2011 at 16:07

  166. steve

    FF 4.09b
    AMD 3800+ running 2.0GHz
    2BG 800 MHz DDR2
    Windows Vista
    Nvidia GTS 240
    90 FPS

    January 23rd, 2011 at 16:05

  167. Pablo Leon

    FF 4b9 (similar results on 4b8)
    OpenIndiana b148 (Solaris)
    Pentium D 3.0 Ghz
    Nvidia 9600 GT
    3 Gb RAM

    52 FPS

    It’s OK for me

    January 24th, 2011 at 05:32

  168. Bikeros

    FF 4b10
    AMD Phenom II 1050T @ 3.0
    ATI 5870 2GB
    W7 6GB RAM

    95 FPS.

    get it up to 120 fps and 3D web content … bring it on.

    For now my lcd does 60 fps so anything more hmmm …
    Fix some bugs, dont make it faster ;)

    January 26th, 2011 at 14:35

  169. mb

    its weird… ei get 70 fps with the stresstest, but it looks horrible… the movement of the images is not smooth, it is like a dia-show.. it looks like its only 5 fps, but it tells me its 70 fps…

    i run firefox on a hp compaq 8710w with ubuntu 10.04 and i use the proprietary graphics driver recommended by ubuntu.

    January 26th, 2011 at 15:23

  170. J Maulds

    Firefox 4 Beta 10
    Intel Atom D525 @ 1.83 GHz
    Next Gen Nvidia Ion 512MB RAM
    4GB System RAM

    64 FPS

    Fine with me as this is just a nettop used for some productivity work and as a HTPC. Hardware acceleration helps out so much as the Intel Atom is just so slow.

    January 28th, 2011 at 20:09

    1. Ivan Dasim

      What is your laptop brand and model…I’d like to buy.

      January 31st, 2011 at 09:19

  171. edoovel

    Firefox 4b10: 60fps
    IE9: 20 fps
    Chrome 10: 43fps

    Nvidia GeForce 310M 1GB VRAM + Intel HD Graphics (with Optimus)
    Windows 7 Home Premium (x64) Service Pack 1 (RC)
    Intel Core i5 m450 2.40GHz
    2GB DDR3 RAM

    January 29th, 2011 at 20:28

  172. Mauldin

    Firefox 4 Beta 10
    Windows 7
    Intel Atom D525 @ 1.83 GHz
    Next Gen Nvidia Ion 512MB RAM
    4GB System RAM

    4 FPS with hardware acceleration turned off.
    64 FPS with hardware acceleration enabled.

    It’s amazing what the difference is on a system with so little resources.

    January 29th, 2011 at 23:38

  173. Marcio

    I know I have an old system but… no hw acceleration for me?
    Windows XP
    Intel Core 2 Duo 2 GHz
    Mother Gigabyte P35-DS3L
    2 Gb DDR2 800 MHz RAM
    ATI Radeon HD 4600 with 1 Gb DDR2 memory
    Catalyst 10.3

    RESULT (Firefox 4 b10): 17 FPS

    January 30th, 2011 at 00:01

    1. Leandro Santiago

      No HWAccel on Windows XP. It’s not supported.

      January 31st, 2011 at 18:10

  174. Tobias Potocek

    It’s weird… I got 60 fps and the movement was pretty smooth, but I tested it in Firefox 3.6.12 -> no acceleration at all! So how is then possible that some people (including the guy in the video) got only 4-12 fps in Firefox 4 with acceleration off? Shouldn’t be Firefox 4 faster than 3 in all cases?

    January 31st, 2011 at 03:32

    1. Jesus

      Firefox 3.6 = No Hardware Acceleration
      Firefox 4 = Yes HA

      “how is then possible that some people (including the guy in the video) got only 4-12 fps in Firefox 4 with acceleration off?”
      Firefox 4 has Hardware Acceleration turned on by defualt but for the purpose of the demonstration in the video, HA was disabled to show the difference when off compared to how much FPS you can achieve when it is on.

      February 4th, 2011 at 11:00

      1. Tobias Potocek

        Well ok, but if you check some of these comments you’ll see that the hardware acceleration isn’t a 100% working feature. And I think that’s not going to change as the HA is always problematic, at least on Linux boxes and some not really common graphics cards. Not to mention XP users. What about them? They will get their 4FPS? Or should they just keep using the old Firefox 3.6 which will be sooner or later deprecated?

        Right now I get without any acceleration 50-60 fps using the old Firefox 3.6. So I would expect from Firefox 4 at least the same values without acceleration and some huge number with hardware acceleration. I just find it funny because fps improvement from 50-60 to 80-90 fps is actually small comparing to the hype which is all around.

        On the other hand, it’s just a benchmark, made by Mozilla. I tried to run it with Opera, Chrome and Konqueror (Webkit) and in all cases it was hardly moving. But the performance with normal webpages, “the feeling of speed”, is pretty much the same like with Firefox. So having high fps on benchmark doesn’t actually mean smooth browsing. I hope the Firefox developers will focus on that, not on some self-made benchmarks. It’s good for promotion but it has a zero benefit for a user.

        February 4th, 2011 at 13:35

  175. andeng

    Firefox 4 beta 10
    acer aspire 4736z
    Windows 7 x64
    3gb ram
    intel gma 4500m 64mb dedicated video memory
    intel pentium dual core 2.2ghz

    RESULT: 52fps on (firefox 4 b10)

    [34fps on (ie9)]

    February 1st, 2011 at 00:24

  176. Mire

    Firefox 4 beta 10
    Windows 7 x64
    2gb ram
    Nvidia 9600gt
    inte pentium d925 clock 3,8 ghz

    RESULT: 83fps on (firefox 4 b10)

    February 5th, 2011 at 15:13

  177. Gmaster

    Windows:
    Win7 x86 + Firefox4 beta 10 = 97 FPS

    Linux:
    Debian Squeeze x86 + Firefox Beta 10 = 8 FPS
    Debian Squeeze x86 + Firefox 3.5 (iceweasel) = 16 FPS

    Why so low in linux?

    February 5th, 2011 at 22:40

  178. Suminona

    Win 7 64bit
    AMD 955 4core
    Geforce 9500gt
    firefox 4 beta 10
    100fps

    February 9th, 2011 at 05:23

  179. frabad

    browser : FF4 Beta 11
    system : Arch Linux 64bit on a Thinkpad x61s laptop
    CPU : Core 2 Duo 1,6 GHz
    graphics : Intel GM965 Express
    test result : 52 FPS

    February 9th, 2011 at 14:32

  180. slade

    Win Vista 32 bit
    Intel Core 2 Duo T 6600 @ 2.2 Ghz
    RAM 2 GB DDR3
    Ati Radeon 4570 512MB
    firefox 4 beta 11
    10 fps

    February 9th, 2011 at 22:53

  181. motomast3r

    Win 7
    Intel Core i3 3.03 Ghz
    4 GB DDR3 RAM
    Geforce gt420 1GB
    Internet Explorer 9 RC
    I got Stuning score 280 FPS

    February 10th, 2011 at 13:16

  182. J Mauldin

    I had previously reported my score on Firefox 4 Beta 10 @ 64 FPS.

    My System:
    Win 7 64 Bit
    Intel Atom D525 @ 1.80Ghz
    Next Gen Nvidia Ion 512MB RAM
    4GB System RAM

    Firefox 10 Beta 11: 68 FPS(Two Attempts)
    Internet Explorer 9 RC: 223 FPS(First Attempt) and 230 FPS(Second Attempt)

    So Mozilla, how is the IE9 RC coming up so much faster?

    February 11th, 2011 at 13:02

  183. fts

    Firefox 4 beta 11
    Windows XP SP3 (no Direct2D so no Content Acceleration, only Compositing Acceleration)
    Sempron 2800+ 2GHz
    Geforce 6100 (integrated, D3D9)

    HA OFF: 11 fps
    HA ON: 15 fps

    February 12th, 2011 at 12:03

  184. Smith

    intel i5-540,
    4G Memory
    nvidia NVS 3100

    firefox nightly 100fps,

    IE 9 rc 267fps

    why ?

    February 12th, 2011 at 15:41

  185. Ryanox

    I just got a new hardware this week and I re-ran the test. but, the result for firefox 4 beta 11 test is pretty much the same with my old system.

    results
    ff4beta11: 91 fps
    ff4beta10: 90 fps (with my old sys)
    IE9 beta: 60 fps (old sys)
    IE 9 RC : 296 fps <– is this a wow or a flaw?

    win7 x64 ultimate
    Q8300 @ 3 ghz
    4gb RAM
    NV GTX 460 1gig

    my system was:
    win7 x64 ultimate
    E2200 @ stock
    3gb of RAM
    NV GT 9500 512mb

    February 12th, 2011 at 21:44

  186. _CH_Skyline_

    Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.046Ghz
    8GB 1540Mhz DDR3
    3x GTX 260 core 216 3way-SLI

    Firefox 4 beta 11 = 94 fps
    IE9 RC = 275

    I love the Hardware Acceleration in Firefox, but IE9 RC is smoking it big time, I hope Firefox catches up soon.

    February 13th, 2011 at 01:02

  187. maximi89

    Windows XP have a similar performance with GNU/Linux with OpenSOurce Drivers…

    February 13th, 2011 at 19:49

  188. noname

    Firefox 4= 95 fps.
    IE9= 303FPS <GG

    i5 760, gtx 460 1gb, 4gb ram

    February 13th, 2011 at 23:02

  189. kuda

    For those of you getting 10fps or so,

    type in “about:support” into the address bar and,
    check that “Direct2D Enabled” is set to true.
    (Graphics section on the bottom of the page).

    If it’s not enabled try updating your graphics drivers.

    February 16th, 2011 at 16:10

  190. gorillamilk

    since IE9 is available for download, I’m sorry to say most other browsers are sadly behind at least the video performance.

    FireFox 3.6 – 12fps

    Firefox 4 – 90fps

    IE9 beta – 302fps

    xeon quadcore 2.6
    nvidia – 9800gt

    February 17th, 2011 at 17:47

    1. Yaro Kasear

      You didn’t list Chrome or Chromium’s FPS in your post at all, just did an inane comparison between Firefox pre-acceleration and BETA (Emphasis on BETA) against IE. Bias much?

      Don’t forget Chrome and Chromium had the acceleration feature LONG before Firefox was playing with it (And so far Mozilla is STILL mostly just playing with it.), and LONG before Microsoft had any clue how to do it in a web browser.

      Even if you’re attempts to shill for IE are true, IE9 is still as insecure, broken, and noncompliant as ever. IE7 and IE8 didn’t really address that many of IE6’s issues, Microsoft just polished it up more.

      And in IE9 they rigged it to cheat on the standards tests. It turns out it’s STILL unable to do anything groups like the W3C actually intended.

      I have, however, moved on from Firefox, finding it vloated and slow compared to most other browsers, switched to Chromium a bit, stayed on there a few months, but now am using Konqueror in Webkit mode (I am a Linux user.). It works great.

      Here’s a little trivia: Webkit, “created” by Apple, was actually derived from Konqueror’s KHTML engine. A great deal of web browsers out today, Chrome/Chromium included, owe their very existence to Konqueror, though Apple would probably rather go bankrupt than actually admit most its products and technology are highly derivative and not innovative at all.

      February 17th, 2011 at 19:54

      1. gorillamilk

        Not bias, but from what I see Mozilla is about to release somethign over 3 times slower than their rivel.

        I used to use chrome until I needed a brwoser that could release cache properly on a page refresh. Firefox still has considerable cache issues. Unfortunately IE sucks completely, but has the best settings for ignoring cached data.

        I use firefox, but still have to close it every once in a while to clear the cache… even when i have told it not to remember anything.

        Overall, I am annoyed that ie9 now has substantial performance, but I still can’t use it in a professional environment, and I’m not even a web developer or programmer… frustrating indeed.

        February 17th, 2011 at 22:24

      2. James

        “Don’t forget Chrome and Chromium had the acceleration feature LONG before Firefox was playing with it”

        I’m sure most browsers used an’accleration feature’ when browsing using the CPU. If you mean GPU enable hardware-accleration, please inform me of how long Chrome actually had it implemented before anyone ever tried to duplicate it?

        Google has announced of also using GPU accleration in Chrome after Microsoft’s and Mozilla’s announcement and thier GPU-enabled builds. Both IE9 and FF4 builds had Gpu accleration before Google joined in. Yes Google has released Chrome 9(stable) with GPU acceleration but they are still improving it in Chrome10/11.

        http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/browser_hardware_acceleration_with_direct2d_next_frontier_in_browser_wars.php#

        February 18th, 2011 at 11:43

  191. pipy

    Linux OpenSUSE 11.3
    Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz
    GeForce GTX 460 270.18

    FireFox 4.0b11 – 81FPS
    Chrome 10.0.648.82 beta – 197FPS

    February 20th, 2011 at 13:55

  192. Andres

    Poor text display has nothing to do with Direct2D. DirectWrite is being used in Firefox which is the way to go in Windows 7 or Vista with SP2.

    It is important for Windows browsers to switch to Direct2D even if OpenGL is available. This is an API provided by the OS manufacturer as being the closest you can get to the core in their system. I wrote a simple image viewer in C++ using the Win32 API and saw a modest performance increase by switching to Direct2D even in such a simple application. Also there are many nifty things you get to do in Direct2D that it’s not possible in normal Windows programming. One is that you can store images as Direct3D textures and then blit them together to a Direct2D render target, and these textures are stored in the video card memory instead of system memory. So in the end, this is going to provide a way to use your computer resources in a better way than just for gaming.

    February 20th, 2011 at 20:22

  193. LeonelK

    91 FPS on:

    GeForce 9500GT 1GB DRR2
    Intel Core 2 Duo 2,7Ghz (OC)
    3GB RAM DDR2
    Very Good ;)

    February 21st, 2011 at 15:49

  194. LeonelK

    Firefox 4 b11= 90FPS
    IE9 RC= 308 FPS
    Google Crhome 9= 19 FPS
    Opera 11.01= can not be opened

    February 21st, 2011 at 16:10

  195. Web Development

    If I evaluate the acceleration of the system for web development, then i would be needing high speed system to cater the various development activities taking place in development of a website and all the performance of a developer depends on the hardware acceleration.

    February 22nd, 2011 at 00:08

  196. tangly

    windows 7 SP1

    Thinkpad W500(T9600,4G mem,FireGL V5700)

    Fx 4 90 fps

    IE9 RC 485 fps…

    February 22nd, 2011 at 05:28

    1. tangly

      sorry, not 485, but 285

      February 22nd, 2011 at 05:29

  197. Nawfel

    I don’t know what’s it ,but i heard that ubuntu and fedora will use WAYLAND
    Will firefox support it

    February 24th, 2011 at 04:08

  198. Nikos

    Windows 7 SP1
    P4 3.0Ghz with HT enable
    RAM DDR1 1.8GB
    AGP ATI 4650 1GB

    Fx 3.6 7 FPS
    Fx 4.0 77 FPS

    11X boost!

    February 26th, 2011 at 06:20

  199. MM

    IE9 RC: 177 FPS
    FF4 B12: 77 FPS
    Opera/Chrome: 11 FPS

    IE9 RC beat FF4 at its own game. At least on my laptop…

    February 27th, 2011 at 17:33

  200. Shek

    I have Windows 7 Proffesional 64 bit.
    Graphics : ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650.
    Tested with those browsers.

    Without Hardware acceleration.
    Internet Explorer 9 RC : 31 fps
    Google Chrome 9 : 16 fps
    Mozilla Firefox b12 : 20 fps

    WIth Hardware acceleration:
    Internet Explorer 9 RC: 260 fps
    Mozilla Firefox 4 b12 : 12 fps

    Well there is obviously something wrong, or the Firefox 4 does not support my graphic’s card…
    In the about:support i get this:
    “Blocked on your graphics driver. Try updating your graphics driver to version 10.6 or newer.”
    For Direct2D Enabled.
    Well i updated a day or two ago, so i do not think it is a driver’s problem…

    February 28th, 2011 at 20:45

  201. Hector

    15” MacBook Pro Mid 2010
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M

    Mozilla Firefox 4b12 : 4 FPS!!!

    Why? HW is on in preferences.

    March 1st, 2011 at 16:44

    1. fok

      the same with an imac mid 2009 mozilla 4 rc 5 fps !!!!

      March 13th, 2011 at 14:23

    2. trlkly

      It doesn’t accelerate properly in the MacOS because QuartzGL is disabled by default.

      March 24th, 2011 at 07:15

  202. Alex

    IE 9: 77fps
    Firefox 4: 14fps

    March 2nd, 2011 at 03:54

  203. Peter

    Konqueror 4.5.3: 17 fps
    Firefox 4: 11 fps

    March 4th, 2011 at 05:55

  204. Gweezel

    Asus G73jh Mid 2010
    ATI Mobile 5870, 1GB RAM
    12 GB RAM

    Firfox 4: 13 FPS
    Opera & Chrome: 16FPS
    IE9: 293 FPS

    March 4th, 2011 at 09:28

  205. LF Júnior

    Dell inspiron 1428i
    intel dual core T4300, 4 gb ddr2 @ 667 mhz

    Firefox 4 beta 12 running @ 77 FPS

    March 4th, 2011 at 17:00

  206. Nikola Radovanovic

    AMD Athlon64 X2 3600+
    2GB RAM
    GeForce 9500 GT 512 MB
    Ubuntu 10.10 32bit
    Mozilla Firefox 4.0b13pre
    ——————————-
    38 fps

    March 5th, 2011 at 03:55

  207. DNA

    Dell studio 1535
    CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T5850 @ 2.16 GHz
    RAM: 4GB
    GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series 256MB up to 2GB
    Screen Resolution: 1280×800
    Windows Vista Home Premium

    Firefox 4 Beta 11 & 12 -> 12fps with or without enabled acceleration

    March 6th, 2011 at 09:44

  208. Andy

    Custom built PC:

    Kubuntu 11.04 alpha 3+ 64-bit
    Phenom II X4 945
    GeForce 480GTX w/ binary driver

    Minefield (64-bit) 4.0b13pre (2011-03-03):

    77 FPS

    March 6th, 2011 at 12:22

  209. Why

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX460 2-way SLI
    Windows 7 64-bit

    Firefox 3.6 = 12 fps
    Firefox 4 = 91 fps
    IE 9 (RC) = 309 fps

    … ouch

    March 6th, 2011 at 20:46

    1. Why

      … everyone better help out with the Grafx Bot

      March 6th, 2011 at 20:50

    2. KEC

      AMD Phenom[tm]11×4 940 Processor
      Nvidia 9600GT Graphics Card
      4Gig Kingston Ram
      Firefox 4 = 90-100fps
      IE9(RC) = 300-310fps

      March 7th, 2011 at 12:48

  210. dE_logics

    MOZILLA SUCKS… I get 14 FPS on Chromium, (Radeon x1270) and 8 FPS on Firefox.

    March 6th, 2011 at 23:51

    1. Crissy

      News flash, both of those numbers suck!

      March 24th, 2011 at 11:11

  211. sanjeeve

    Intel Pentium 4 3 GHz, 2GB RAM, Nvidia Ge force 8800GT
    FireFox 4 Beta 12

    77 FPS.

    March 7th, 2011 at 06:09

    1. sanjeeve

      Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit

      March 7th, 2011 at 06:10

  212. Tien Nguyen

    ASUS K70IO: Intel T4200, 4GB RAM, NVIDIA GT 120M
    Windows 7 32 bit
    FF 4b12
    Test result: 60+ FPS

    March 7th, 2011 at 17:57

  213. maximi89

    OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc
    OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Mobile Intel® GM45 Express Chipset GEM 20091221
    2009Q4
    OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 7.7.1
    OpenGL shading language version string: 1.20

    Debian 6,about 30 to 45FPS, but around to 30 it was working fine, then at 45 it start jumping in the FPS…

    March 7th, 2011 at 22:25

  214. ofbarea

    HP laptop
    CPU: 1.8 GHz
    Video: Intel 4 Series Express – Drivers 8.15.10.2226

    Firefox 3.6.15 => 5 FPS
    Firefox 4 RC => 33 FPS

    March 9th, 2011 at 18:08

  215. FlashDark

    Update for Intel’s GMA 4500 works!

    Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family

    Before driver update:
    Driver Version: 8.15.10.2141 – 10 FPS

    After driver update:
    Driver Version: 8.15.10.2202 – 47 FPS

    March 10th, 2011 at 06:22

  216. icepick314

    odd…

    if I have the tab on top, it usually stays around 20-30 fps…

    if I have another tab on top while the test is running on the bottom, it’s 60+fps…

    can others confirm this?

    Win 7 64bit SP1
    Intel i7 Q720 1.60GHz
    8GB system RAM
    AMD Radeon Mobility 5870 1GB RAM

    March 10th, 2011 at 11:43

  217. moises

    con firefox 4 rc1 60+fps… una buena aceleracion

    amd sempron le 2.1ghz
    3gb ram ddr2 800
    nvidia geforce 8500gt 512 ddr2

    +60fps…. a good

    March 10th, 2011 at 13:39

  218. Murdok03

    Ubuntu Alpha3 + Nvidia GT8600M
    Google Chrome 10 : 20 fps
    Firefox 4.0 rc1 : 12 fps

    March 10th, 2011 at 15:29

  219. Mmx

    Results:
    with hw/acceleration : 60+fps
    without : 15fps

    BUT! There is a but.
    Scrolling with hw acceleration is all but smooth – definetely less smooth than without acceleration. The same goes for text selection and other trivial operations, there is a noticeable lag between the mouse and the scrollbar or the end of the text selection.

    So, in the end, hw acceleration disabled is much much better imo (I don’t care for useless canvas ops, I care about text scrolling speed which is 95% of a web experience)

    Also, with hw accel, the text in the toolbars is all blurred and bad looking.

    March 11th, 2011 at 03:11

  220. Federico

    – Mac OS-X 10.5.8 (iDeneb) on IBM Z-Pro 2 x Xeon 64 bit, dual core.
    – Graphix card is Nvidia Quadro FX 1500 256 MB VRAM.
    – Open GL test, about 1500 FPS @ 1280 x 1024, 32 bit color.

    OS-X results:
    – Firefox 4 RC1: 2 FPS, no difference HW acceleration ON/OFF.
    – Safari 5: 4 FPS.

    Win 7 on Parallels virtualizzation:
    – Internet Explorer 9/64: 20 FPS.
    – Firefox 4 RC1: 9 FPS

    Note that both browsers into the virtualizzator obtains better performances!

    Bye, Federico

    March 11th, 2011 at 08:51

  221. Federico

    I installed the test bot, now I’ll go to test both IE 4 (OS-X and Windows 7/64).

    March 11th, 2011 at 09:07

  222. Jonathan

    What about XP ??
    Don’t have the money to upgrade to windows 7.

    Why is it so hard to have this feture in XP too ??

    I’m styung with flash !

    March 12th, 2011 at 02:16

  223. Why

    On or after March 7 Mozilla limited the results to show only up to 60 frames per sec. The most you can get is 60+ FPS, so dont be worried if you dont get the three digit fps’s that others before you got.

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX460 Windows 7 64-bit

    Firefox 3.6 = 12 fps
    Firefox 4 = 91 fps
    IE 9 (RC) = 309 fps (March 6, 2011)
    :)

    March 13th, 2011 at 13:09

  224. like_woah

    Nvidia GTX 460m -Windows 7 ultimate

    Firefox 4 RC: 60+ FPS

    March 14th, 2011 at 16:57

  225. Tushar Sharma

    Chromium 11.0.686.0 : 5 FPS
    Google Chrome 11.0.672.2 : 5 FPS
    Opera 11.01 : 4 FPS
    Safari 5.03 : 2 FPS
    Firefox 3.6.13 : 1 FPS
    Firefox 4 RC1 : 1 FPS

    on a very old machine (from 2004) running XP SP3 with 32 MB integrated graphics.
    Moving form FF to Chrome has definitely made my life a lot easier.

    March 15th, 2011 at 08:30

    1. BlueCat57

      While no one here has yet to answer the real question:
      How do I know if my system is capable of hardware acceleration?
      I’m pretty sure that a system from 2004 with integrated graphics is not.
      I’m guessing you need a fairly recent motherboard, CPU and/or graphics card to take advantage of hardware acceleration.
      In the case of older systems going to Chrome will be faster because Chrome doesn’t have all the built-in overhead that other browsers do. Once you load it up with all sorts of add-ons and extensions it will slow down like all the other browsers.

      March 24th, 2011 at 06:00

      1. pat

        I tried Chrome and hated it. It slowed everything down.

        March 24th, 2011 at 14:09

  226. Neeraj Vohra

    Why its limited to 60+ FPS ? I wanna test the maximum FPS my system supports.

    Sony VPCEB14EN

    FPS: 60+ FPS

    March 16th, 2011 at 00:16

  227. Mightyjacks

    Phenom II x4 955
    HD4870

    Firefox 4 RC1: 60+
    Chrome: 14
    IE9: froze

    March 16th, 2011 at 13:06

  228. Paul

    Macbook Pro 17″ 2.53 Ghz core i5
    Mac OS X 10.6.6
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M

    Firefox RC1, 4 fps!

    March 16th, 2011 at 22:08

  229. Daniel

    You would better help by running GrafxBot..

    March 18th, 2011 at 03:19

  230. ChoK

    Archlinux 64 bits
    C2D 2Ghz and 2GB RAM
    nvidia 9300M GS with 260.19.44
    chrome 11.0.697.0

    34 FPS

    March 18th, 2011 at 17:11

  231. Justin Smith

    Phenum II 955 BE oc to 3.6GHz
    8GB of DDR3 1600
    ATI 4890 1GB

    on Windows 7 x64 Ultimate

    60+ FPS whilst running 20 plus tabs including Flash 1080p playback in two pages… owhh and streaming NHK World ustream from Japan at the same time…

    WICKED!!!

    People with poor performance in Windows

    March 18th, 2011 at 17:40

  232. Justin Smith

    The one comment I’d like to make though is with regarding to the plugin container…

    MAN does it use a LOT OF RAM!!!

    For me it’s consuming dam near 1GB of RAM!!!

    SUCKS…

    March 18th, 2011 at 17:41

  233. Hexa

    Why in the world limit the FPS? Because IE9 suddenly beat FF4 out of its pants? Common guys…. seriously? FF4 beats IE9 at its own game too. Mr.Potato gets 14000pts in FF4 while only 9000 in IE9. Microsoft doesn’t go posting “2000+ pts”, now do they? This is very unprofessional. Sad, really. Pathetic in a word.
    By the way, I’m sticking with FF4, no question. I’m just disappointed at the frame limiter.

    March 20th, 2011 at 07:25

    1. Paul Rouget

      I limited the test to 60 FPS because:
      1. drawing more than 60 FPS is completely useless and a waste of CPU/GPU (display can’t show more than 60FPS).
      2. this test has been initially designed to show the difference between Firefox 3.6 and Firefox 4, but the concurrence now use this test as well, and we don’t consider that 100FPS is better than 60.

      Also, this test is not accurate enough to be considered as a reference for comparing different browsers. I’ll update the code as soon as I can to make this test more serious.

      March 21st, 2011 at 04:08

  234. Why

    On or after March 7 Mozilla limited the results to show only up to 60 frames per sec. The most you can get is 60+ FPS, so dont be worried if you dont get the three digit fps’s that others before you got.

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX460 Windows 7 64-bit
    Firefox 3.6 = 12 fps
    Firefox 4 = 91 fps
    IE 9 (RC) = 309 fps (March 6, 2011)
    :)

    also…

    HP dv6t QE w/ 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 6570 GDDR5 (March 20,2011)
    Firefox 4 = 60+ fps
    IE9 = 60+ fps

    March 20th, 2011 at 17:57

  235. Jhonny

    57FPS Firefox 4 use 100%GPU.
    and test microsoft (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/GraphicsAccelebration/Default.html)

    20FPS :/ 60%CPU and 40%GPU.
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Radeon HD 4350.
    Athlon II x2 255
    2GB DDR3

    March 20th, 2011 at 19:33

  236. syedhamjath

    It better when compared to previous version of Firefox.
    Its good that, The browser make a uses of silicons and metals.

    Welcome to GPU – Mozilla….

    March 21st, 2011 at 08:39

  237. stifen

    download the final build and see for your self the new result. in my test it max to 60 fps.

    March 21st, 2011 at 19:00

  238. Octav

    Notebook ASUS N71J

    Firefox 4 final buid : 60fps+ (taking into account that it is limited to 60)

    March 22nd, 2011 at 13:19

  239. realfastbrowsing

    Windows 7 Professional x64
    AMD Phenom 9550 (2,4 Ghz)
    ASUS AMD Radeon 5770
    4GB DDR2 RAM

    Firefox 4 RC1 : 60+ FPS!!

    March 22nd, 2011 at 14:19

  240. dan276

    Windows XP Professional
    Intel Pentium III-S 1.4GHz
    Nvidia GeForce 4 Ti4200
    1 GB PC133 SDRAM
    Firefox 4.0 Final

    2 Frames Per Second

    Is there a minimum video card requirement that I’m missing?

    March 22nd, 2011 at 17:01

    1. BlueCat57

      Yes. Unfortunately I can only tell you that there is. One of the experts here will need to give you the specifics. The test only shows what your system is can do, a better test would tell you if your system is capable of hardware acceleration and if not what you need to change to take advantage of that feature. Software companies and their programmers don’t care about writing software that runs fast on existing mainstream hardware. Their perspective is that hardware is cheap and anyone that owns a computer can afford to upgrade their hardware to take advantage of whatever bloated software they can program and sell. Compare that to NASA and the military who are still using very old hardware and getting the job done by programming fast, efficient software.

      March 24th, 2011 at 06:07

  241. Maximi89

    Windows XP doesn´t have acceleraton… and in GNU/Linux we need people testing and reporting because there is so much bugs who make crash to FF

    March 23rd, 2011 at 08:50

    1. dan276

      Oops! This isn’t a 3D acceleration test, is it? I got the wrong impression when I first read about this test. There was never any hope that my system would be able to run this test well, even if I had up-to-date hardware. Without at least Windows Vista and Direct2D, I’m left out.

      March 24th, 2011 at 18:26

  242. David Lee

    I know that DirectDraw is obsolete and deprecated, but isn’t it unfair to say that XP has no 2D acceleration methods when in fact it has DirectDraw? Why not make Firefox 4 for Windows detect if it’s on a legacy platform, and fallback to DirectDraw first, only falling back to software renderer if even DirectDraw is unavailable?

    March 23rd, 2011 at 09:48

  243. Smartens

    Firefox 4

    Intel i5 M520 – 6GB RAM
    NVIDIA GeForce 310M – 512MB RAM

    266.58_notebook_winvista_win7_64bit_international_whql

    60 FRAMES

    March 23rd, 2011 at 11:52

  244. Honza

    can we get more specific results not just 60+?

    March 23rd, 2011 at 16:49

    1. BlueCat57

      Someone mentioned above that displays can only do 60 fps. While that is probably not technically true I belive the human eye stops being able to detect any flicker at around that frame rate. Maybe a little higher.

      March 24th, 2011 at 16:00

  245. Santosh

    I got 60+ Fps on Sony Vaio (nvidia graphics) with Firefox 4.0

    March 24th, 2011 at 00:10

  246. OldPcUser

    Firefox 4

    DC chips motherboard, model unknown(corrupted BIOS)
    PCI VGA Card, 16mb, made in china, no model description(i hate chinaware)
    256MB RAM, dual-channel, modified memory chips
    Intel® 486 Processor

    45 FPS
    Windows XP

    System crashed after 3 minutes…

    March 24th, 2011 at 08:45

  247. OldPcUser

    Oh and don’t laugh at me i do have a new pc, i was just running some tests…
    oh an this was the performance on my mid-range pc:

    Firefox 4

    ASUS P7H55-mBR Motherboard
    N240GT Graphics card, 512 MB GDDR5
    4GB RAM DDR3 1333 clock(not sure though…)
    intel i3 processor, performance configured, 4 cores, about 3 GHZ(variable)

    32 FPS
    Windows 7

    Firefox closed after test, but stayed open in the process list…
    (until i saw it and closed it :) )

    i still can’t believe this…

    could someone out there with a old 486 test it out?
    i really want to see if the memory and vga modifications worked!
    even with the mods they don’t get at my mid range pc’s feet though…

    March 24th, 2011 at 09:06

  248. David

    Dual Core E5400 2.70 ghz
    Asus hd5670
    4 gb ram

    firefox4: 60+
    ie9: 60+

    March 24th, 2011 at 11:45

  249. BlueCat57

    Here are some links that tell you how to determine if you have hardware acceleration activated and if not whether your video card is capable and if yes then how to activate it.

    I think that we need to be clear that hardware acceleration is available ONLY for more recent graphics chips with the most current drivers. It is not something that you can expect a computer much over 1 year old to be capable of. Even if your card appears to have the right specs if you can’t use the most recent drivers then you can’t use hardware acceleration.

    It would be nice if all this were simple and clear, but it is not. I know enough to ask the right questions but not enough to know the answers off hand. Do a little research if hardware acceleration is important to you. And do a lot of research before you spend money on new hardware

    How to tell if you’re using hardware acceleration
    http://blog.mozilla.com/joe/2010/11/10/how-to-tell-if-youre-using-hardware-acceleration/

    Video Cards that have be Blocked by Mozilla because they crash, read carefully
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers

    How to enable Direct2D
    http://www.sevenforums.com/browsers-mail/106007-enable-direct2d-hardware-acceleration-mozilla-firefox.html

    Good luck!

    March 24th, 2011 at 16:22

  250. Dazza J

    chrome 10 I get 60+
    Firefox 4 – 13

    March 25th, 2011 at 04:32

  251. Alan Edwards

    Dell Studio XPS-8100 (Core i7-860, 8Gb RAM, 1Gb ATI Radeon HD 5450, 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium). Firefox 4 Release – 17 FPS without hardware acceleration, 60+ with it

    Samsung NC20 (VIA Nano, 2G RAM, VIA integrated graphics, XP Pro). Firefox 3.6.16, 3 FPS

    Apple PowerMac (dual 1Ghz G4, 1.5Gb RAM, 32Mb Geforce MX, OSX Leopard). Firefox 3.6.16, 1 FPS, Safari 5.0.4, 2 FPS.

    March 25th, 2011 at 08:27

  252. panos

    Using Opera 11.5 I got 60+ fps on Windows XP. I am limited to 12 fps with Firefox.

    So I’ll consider switching to Opera.

    I didn’t like Mozilla’s refusal to support video codecs through directshow (which would allow FFdshow users to enjoy x264) while providing hardware acceleration with directx instead of opengl.

    March 25th, 2011 at 11:39

    1. dan276

      You got that through Opera on Windows XP!? Awesome!
      Opera may be closed-source, but it always has done nifty things like maintain backward compatibility with old operating systems longer than others! It finally dropped support for Windows 9X at around version 10.5X, but it was very handy while it lasted. It’s great to see that it is also doing its best to make the latest web features work with Microsoft’s aging but concrete-sturdy XP operating system! I like Opera!

      March 26th, 2011 at 11:36

    2. Ron

      Or change video driver and/or card.

      With a trailing edge GeForce 210 and the 260.19 driver, I got 60+ FPS even on FF 3.6.17.

      April 30th, 2011 at 17:28

  253. dan276

    Direct2D is not the same kind of acceleration as DirectDraw. All DirectDraw does is free the CPU from the task of drawing a rapid sequence of pictures (video) on the screen. Direct2D frees the CPU from picture rendering effects like rotation and stuff; things that you need 3D accelerators for. DirectDraw wouldn’t help much with a demo like this.

    March 26th, 2011 at 11:26

    1. dan276

      Oh, for crying out loud! If you miss the captcha and then try again, it posts your reply at the end of the comments area rather than the under the post you’re replying to! What a crock!

      March 26th, 2011 at 11:29

    2. dan276

      I have a feeling I got that thing about Direct2D wrong. But I’m still sure DirectDraw wouldn’t be of use.

      March 26th, 2011 at 12:24

  254. moojo

    mozilla is the best web browser thanks firefox

    March 26th, 2011 at 15:37

  255. Why

    On or after March 7 Mozilla limited the results to show only up to 60 frames per sec. The most you can get is 60+ FPS, so dont be worried if you dont get the three digit fps’s that some of the others before you got.

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX460 Windows 7 64-bit
    Firefox 3.6 = 12 fps
    Firefox 4 = 91 fps
    IE 9 (RC) = 309 fps (March 6, 2011)
    :)

    also…
    HP dv6t QE w/ 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 6570 GDDR5 (March 20,2011)
    Firefox 4 = 60+ fps
    IE9 = 60+ fps
    Chrome 10 = 22 fps

    March 27th, 2011 at 20:15

  256. frank vale

    using 13″ macbook black / intel
    get best results with Opera browser 15fps
    firefox 2fps
    chrome 5fps

    March 28th, 2011 at 14:09

  257. ninez

    2x Pentium R Dual-Core (e6300 @ 2.80GHz)
    4gig RAM – Nvidia Geforce 9400GT
    ArchLinux 64bit

    FireFox4-PGO-enabled (as in compiled once wiht GCC, a series of benchmarks to help build a profile -> Compiled a 2nd tine using the profile, thus allowing the code to be superstreamlined/optimized.

    (XULRunner independent, PGO optimized, 64-bit TraceMonkey,
    dev tree, multithreaded).

    Hands down, the best performance out of any browser I have ever used in Windows, Mac, Unix or Linux.

    Im glad you guys have hardware acceleration for us Linux users! :)

    April 3rd, 2011 at 22:52

  258. maximi89

    Most users have Mesa drivers, so we need to get Mozilla working with Mesa or Gallium drivers… but just the newer cards have it… in my case i have about 4FPS with hardware acceleration using Gallium on RS780 (HD 3200) on a Laptop, don’t know in Windows because it say it’s unsupported due to drivers version :D

    April 5th, 2011 at 15:50

    1. ninez

      Most (linux) users have Mesa drivers???? erm, usually Mesa and Gallium are used by people who’s cards aren’t properly supported. the vast majority of people are using Nvidia drivers, ATI Catalyst….with some users also being stuck with open-source drivers, but for me – that is a last resort.

      i had to use Mesa/Gallium for a ATI x1300 no longer properly supported, since KMS was introduced. But Mesa and Gallium suck ( for now ), and it was a real hit on performance, not fun.

      I don’t think your going to be getting high FPS anytime soon on any of the open-source drivers. sad but true.

      April 27th, 2011 at 12:40

  259. Chris Ringrose

    I’m sad.

    12 fps in Firefox 4.
    60+ fps in Internet Explorer 9

    Mozilla, come ONNN.

    April 7th, 2011 at 21:57

  260. Daniel M.

    MacBook Pro 15-inch
    Intel Core i7 2.2GHz quad-core
    4GB 1333MHz
    750GB 5400-rpm
    Intel HD Graphics 3000
    AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5

    Chrome 10.0.648.204 = 9 FPS
    Firefox 4.0 = 5 FPS
    Safari 5.0.4 = 10 FPS

    April 10th, 2011 at 11:21

  261. OldPcUser

    Hey guys!
    i tested firefox with HW accel. on my high end pc after a painful week of reactivating my pc(yes, i damaged it) and another week to track back this post(LOL?)
    i don’t want to be specific, i’m in a hurry now so i will write just basic info
    finally, the results:

    Firefox 4
    windows 7 ultimate 64bit
    16GB RAM
    6TB, 2 Sata’s(unnecessary…) RPM 12000-13000(not sure now)
    my motherboard is the best asus got, two models BEFORE the latest release
    my video card is ONE MODEL away from the best Nvidia
    also my RAM is configured to run at 1333 MHZ

    60 FPS
    followed by a strange ‘warp’ effect and, as many ppl said here, blurry words and even non-responding scrolling of text(which sucks)

    i reccomend you all NOT to activate the HW accel on firefox,(my fav browser) because it STILL SUCKS REAL BAD
    use google chrome 10
    DO NOT USE internet explorer, unless you are a virus collector and love the slow browsing it provides

    BTW my video card supports DX11(not sure though)
    i hope mozilla can do better next release, this one is really bad at which others excel…

    April 11th, 2011 at 16:24

    1. ninez

      Dude, your using the latest nvidia, ever think that maybe it just hasn’t been documented all that well yet?!?!?!

      All of my machines get killer performance. This is a great release, you shouldn’t be telling everyone that it is bad – just because you had a bad experience.

      1. MacOSX = 60+
      2. Win7/xp = 60+
      3. Archlinux = 60+

      i reccomend you all NOT to activate the HW accel on firefox,(my fav browser) because it STILL SUCKS REAL BAD

      and yet on every PC i have 60+ no errors/problems.

      use google chrome 10

      Google Chrome can’t get above 25FPS on any OS/PC i have. chrome sucks!

      DO NOT USE internet explorer, unless you are a virus collector and love the slow browsing it provides.

      are you sure aren’t talking about Windows in general? lol.

      April 27th, 2011 at 12:46

      1. Dolce Devereaux

        IE9 is rather fast now. It’s so fast it scares me.

        May 17th, 2011 at 18:39

    2. Blacqwolf

      I know this is a bit late, but it’s amusing the false teaching and fanboyism that comes around the Failurefox community. I have a fair PC with a dual-core 2.1GHz AMD Turion X2, Windows 7 x64, 4GB DDR2 memory, and an AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4200. It is actually quite fast, and works well with most modern games. Yet Firefox runs quite slowly with it. And if my PC can game somewhat well, I seriously wonder why a browser – something that typically is able to run on the average ten-year-old PC – runs slowly with Flash and HTML5/CSS items on a modern PC.

      And in my experience loading a large website with each application limited to 100KB/s of network usage, Internet Explorer came out on top. I tried loading sites in the browsers all side-by-side and loading one at a time. Internet Explorer kept coming out on top with an average of a 10.5 second load time for a website at about 1MB. Chrome, which is currently my default, had an average of about 11 seconds. Firefox, however, kept loading and loading until I stopped counting at 20 seconds. I tried again and again. the lowest it had was about 18 seconds, but almost every other time it surpassed 20 seconds.

      Undid the bandwidth per application limit, IE still won and Chrome still came in second with Firefox struggling to be an honorable mention – or even a mention at all.

      Also, to your “viruses” argument, based on a recent study Firefox stopped less than 10% of browser and Windows-based malware, while Chrome stopped about 15% and IE9 stopped 99%.

      And to anyone who would dare bring up the standards argument, IE9 is fast catching up, and what it does support it supports better than other browsers. As far as compatibility with advanced websites, IE and Chrome are about the same. However, Firefox was alright on most HTML cases but a lot of the CSS-heavy sites I tested it on, it kept screwing things up. As for Firefox 7, it is a bit better on speed and performance, but still has a lot of bugs that drive me away. And I seriously doubt that any time soon Firefox will catch up to the speed, performance and reliability of IE and Chrome.

      Oh, and to help support my findings on the malware argument, I’d like to say I’ve never caught a major piece of malware on any PC which IE is the default browser. However, back when I was an idiot and got myself into the malware hell Firefox was, I got about 3000 pieces of malware, including some that resulted in my background changing, my system not being able to boot in Safe Mode, a bunch of false malware messages coming up, etc – which resulted in me reinstalling Windows. And my friend just a while ago after the release of Firefox 4 got something similar to that, too. And same for a friend of mine who uses Firefox and had me fix her PC because it was “running slow.” And same for my father, too.

      I’d like to see anyone try and prove me wrong on that, too. Your attempts at such would be very amusing.

      October 10th, 2011 at 21:47

      1. ace

        I use IE as my default now after leaving firefox. IE is the best out there to be honest. Opera has pageload issues (compatibility et al), firefox is looking less like the finished product with every release, chrome is too simple for my liking (plus privacy concerns), safari… went on one this year

        December 27th, 2011 at 22:19

  262. Ab

    Firefox 4: 14 FPS without / 60+ with

    ie9: 51 FPS without / 60+ with

    (Dell 980, i5-750, 4Gb, ATI Radeon HD 4550 512Mb)

    April 11th, 2011 at 22:11

  263. Chris Ringrose

    ****FIX TO MAKE FIREFOX HARDWARE ACCELERATION WORK****

    I was getting 12 fps in Firefox 4. 60+ fps in Internet Explorer 9.

    I simply updated my video card’s drivers (new ones released in 2011), and now Firefox is getting 60+ fps!

    Dell XPS, Win7 64bit
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260

    Google your graphics card, install the latest drivers. Restart. Hope that helps some.

    April 14th, 2011 at 11:29

    1. Peter

      Chris you are probably using GENERIC drivers, not Dell’s. A little caution is needed maybe.

      April 25th, 2011 at 04:26

  264. maximi89

    Windows 7 64bits
    Firefox Nightly 6.0a1 7FPS

    Chrome 10.0.648.205 10FPS

    GNU/Linux 6 with lastest Mesa an average of 4 to 5 FPS

    Graphic card RS780 Radeon HD3200 Mobile
    Gateway NV5214u

    April 17th, 2011 at 08:57

  265. brian murphy

    I have spent the past few hours trying to get a grip on firefox. However I am hung up on leaving firefox because it warns me that I’m leaving a secure site and I need to know how to do this without the “feeling?” that I missed something and my eyes are already watering from following your indoctrination information.
    When I’m about to do something wrong it would be real nice if you would not only tell me that I’m about to do something wrong, but also direct me to the information, or better still, just tell me what the right thing to do is and direct me to the correct button to push to make it right. Of course the information behind the change would be nice to read later. And now that I scrolled down, whats with the reCaptcha? I am sooo tired of those!

    Thanks,
    Murffff

    April 26th, 2011 at 12:25

    1. BlueCat57

      If you are that worried about doing something wrong then the right thing to do is cancel you Internet connect and go back to watching VHS tapes on the TV. If you have set up your security software properly and don’t click on stuff that pops up without reading it, then you are going to be just fine on the Internet. Those warnings are covering Mozilla’s bottom not yours. How many times have you seen expired security certificates from big name companies you trust? It is a big hassle to keep everything up to date much less up to the second. Surf and enjoy, and trust your own instincts.

      April 27th, 2011 at 12:00

  266. Chris Ringrose

    Peter, no, they’re not generic drivers. They’re directly from nvidia’s website for my exact graphics card. The ones I had were about a year old, so since they webgl support has been improved.

    April 26th, 2011 at 14:09

  267. Peter

    Chris you may be right if you have a desktop. However for Dell’s and other Original Equipment Manufactures’ notebooks there are custom build graphics driver. I do not know who builds them(probably not Dell) but they are different from the ones published on the websites of AMD, Nvidia, Intel etc. Custom built drivers can change the default backlight of your display and so on.

    I have no idea how safe is to use the generic graphics drivers and nobody says if they are fine. Dell stays mum on the subject. They seldom update any device drivers at all. Even XPS and Alienware lines don’t get driver updates.

    Does anybody know how safe are generic graphics notebook drivers? Any hardware hazards?

    P.S. “OEM Hardware is the term given to a manufacturer that buys and assembles hardware from another source, and implements it into their own design.”

    April 27th, 2011 at 06:58

  268. Gerd

    Unfortunately, GrafX Bot fails here:

    REFTEST INFO | Starting tests

    REFTEST TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | | EXCEPTION: [Exception… Component returned failure code: 0x80520012 (NS_ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND) [nsIChannel.open] nsresult: x80520012 (NS_ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND) location: JS frame :: chrome://grafxbot/content/grafxbot.js :: ReadManifest :: line 349 data: no]

    REFTEST INFO | Result summary:

    REFTEST INFO | Successful: 0 (0 pass, 0 load only)

    REFTEST INFO | Unexpected: 1 (0 unexpected fail, 0 unexpected pass, 0 unexpected asserts, 0 unexpected fixed asserts, 0 failed load, 1 exception)

    REFTEST INFO | Known problems: 0 (0 known fail, 0 known asserts, 0 random, 0 skipped)

    REFTEST INFO | Total canvas count = 0

    REFTEST INFO | Quitting…

    May 17th, 2011 at 09:28

  269. little_dk

    On my ancient-2008 model HP, with Anthlon 64X2/Ati Radeon, 3 GB RAM, Vista SP2 laptop I get..

    Firefox 4 (without hw accel): 3 FPS
    Firefox 4: 53 FPS avg

    IE9 (without hw accel): 2 FPS
    IE9: 32 FPS avg

    Firefox is consistently faster than IE9.. but whore cares.. Firefox’s speed with HW Acceleration is awesome!

    May 24th, 2011 at 16:06

  270. Dolphin

    CPU Phenom II 965
    Video GTX 460 1GB
    OS Linux Mint 10 (Compiz Enabled)
    60+ FPS ;)

    May 31st, 2011 at 10:07

  271. Neo

    I did a little modding to the source of the Stress Test to show the actual framerate without limit.

    IE9: 280 fps
    IE9 x64: 300 fps
    Chrome 12: 260 fps
    FF 4.0.1: 83 fps

    Firefox seems to be lagging in Mozilla’s own tests too.

    Win 7 x64
    Pentium D 820
    3.25 GB RAM
    AMD Radeon HD 6570

    June 2nd, 2011 at 05:38

    1. louisremi

      There is always room for improvement, agreed.
      Have you tried with Aurora 6?

      June 2nd, 2011 at 09:56

      1. Neo

        Aurora 6: 140 fps
        FF 5b2 : 130 fps

        and chrome 12 : 60 fps and not 260. sorry for the mistake.

        June 2nd, 2011 at 22:49

        1. Paul Rouget

          It’s absolutely *useless* to go over 60FPS. It’s using the CPU/GPU for nothing. That’s why I limited to the test to 60 FPS.

          June 3rd, 2011 at 01:35

          1. Ron

            Then put a governor on FF instead of limiting the test.

            June 3rd, 2011 at 01:45

    2. iiiears

      @Neo
      I admire your skills.
      Link to 3d environment test?

      60+ FPS EL1333 nVidia 210 With nightly build 7.0a1

      June 28th, 2011 at 05:27

      1. Neo

        http://www.multiupload.com/UNDG9NHT8W

        June 29th, 2011 at 20:14

  272. Guilhem Rambal

    AMD E 350 FX5 Win 7 x64 :60+

    June 20th, 2011 at 21:56

    1. Zeiss CP2

      Loved the link for Hardware Acceleration Stress Test. Does having a lot of extensions in FF slow the browser down?

      August 17th, 2011 at 17:20

      1. louisremi

        A poorly written or complex addon can increase memory usage, startup time, and in some case slow the browser down, yes.

        August 18th, 2011 at 02:45

  273. loyd

    you measure Firefox speed in FPS? you should measure it with loading time in ms, this is not a video game!

    July 3rd, 2011 at 04:44

    1. Ron

      Two questions:
      1) Did you actually *read* the first paragraph?
      2) Do you still live in 2002 and still only read static pages?

      July 4th, 2011 at 07:01

      1. Loyd

        Yeah i read it in no where there you will find mention about fps or frames per second. maybe its easier for you to read that the mtv website loads with 60/30 fps on gpu acceleration on/off rather than lets say 103/56ms. i find the later easier to understand.

        July 5th, 2011 at 11:33

        1. Ron

          Performance and load time are orthogonal. Fast load times and high frame rates are *both* important, and not (well, *should not* be) related to each other.

          July 28th, 2011 at 05:02

  274. Santosh

    Hardware acceleration finally comes to linux.
    Checked on 28 Jul 2011 — Firefox 7.0 and 8.0 shows up my Nvidia Driver in about:support page.

    July 28th, 2011 at 04:08

  275. Leandro Santiago

    It seems to work with RadeonHD 3200 on Linux (ubuntu 11.04 64-bit) with lastest (in fact, in development) Gallium3D radeon driver.

    To compare, with fglrx I got about 3fps in firefox6, but with the related gallium3d driver I got 35.

    Finally the XRender extension works fine in radeon :-)

    To the ubuntu users, the ppa I’m using is this:
    https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ppa

    July 29th, 2011 at 17:39

    1. Leandro Santiago

      And other sites like thebautyoftheweb (IE) and chromeexperiments (chrome) are working really faster now :-)

      July 29th, 2011 at 17:40

  276. Todd

    I’m almost certain there’s something flawed with this. In Google Chrome I got 15 fps, but in Chromium, I got 60+ fps when they’re essentially the same program. I got 57 fps in firefox and internet explorer just did not work at all

    August 15th, 2011 at 15:45

  277. Brian Anthony

    I am getting 60fps+ in your test. Can I improve on this? My machine is:
    Dell XPS M1730
    Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2600Mhz.
    2x Nvidia GeForce 8700 GT Graphics
    Screen Res: 1920×1200 pixels @ 59Hz. in True Colour 32Bit

    September 29th, 2011 at 13:39

  278. Mikro

    i have problem with HW accel enabled.

    some html elements are not correctly rendered. no idea why but they are shifted like 1px up or down.

    some idea why that happen.

    if i turn HW accel off this problem dissapear.

    thx.

    September 30th, 2011 at 02:19

  279. BlueCat57

    I just installed FireFox 7. What are we doing still discussing this?

    October 1st, 2011 at 04:29

  280. Mikro

    it happen on version 7. as well.

    updating GFX drivers didnt solve this problem for me.

    October 1st, 2011 at 05:04

  281. Mikro

    i forgot to mention.. on monday i can post screenshots as well with some source code too. so you know what i mean.

    it is strange because it happen / is visible only for that particular part of html code.

    October 1st, 2011 at 05:05

  282. Mikro

    so this is how my problem looks like. same code… HW ON / OFF different results.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/Mikro/Dev/hwaccelproblem.png

    October 1st, 2011 at 05:21

  283. Gggirlgeek

    Firefox 7.01
    On = 60+ FPS
    Off = 7 FPS (SERIOUSLY??)

    Dell Vostro 200
    Core 2 Duo 1.67Ghz
    3Gb RAM
    Win7 32bit
    Nvidia 430GT 1Gb

    Hardware acceleration rocks!

    October 11th, 2011 at 05:15

  284. Specter92

    Firefox 8.0
    On: 16 FPS
    Off: 7 FPS

    Windows XP Pro, all latest drivers (Driver Genius Pro)

    Custom PC
    AMD Phenom 9750
    3GB DDR2
    Nvidia GT 240

    November 10th, 2011 at 16:36

    1. Specter92

      I’m not at all pleased with this – everyone has 60 + FPS!!!
      PC works well with COD4 (30 FPS) at medium quality, 2X AA

      November 10th, 2011 at 16:38

  285. raymond9987654321

    How can I access the version of this test without the “60 FPS” max??

    January 2nd, 2012 at 15:16

  286. MozillaFTW

    Using Mozilla Firefox 9.0.1

    2.9GHz Dual Core AMD CPU
    4GB RAM
    512MB XFX Radeon HD4550

    FPS: 60+ every time with Hardware Accelerated Graphics, i don’t know how to disable Hardware Accelerated Graphics so couldn’t test that x)

    January 2nd, 2012 at 17:28

  287. Filippo

    2,50Ghz quad core Intel
    4 ram
    nvidia geforce 8800gt
    ff 10.0.2 = ff 8 (the same results)

    always 60+

    (“results limit: 60fps. what means?”)

    February 27th, 2012 at 10:24

  288. Filippo

    @raymond9987654321
    How can I access the version of this test without the “60 FPS” max??

    good question.

    February 27th, 2012 at 10:25

  289. Goffredo Marocchi

    Same PC (iMac), Firefox 11 : 4 FPS, Chrome 18 : 60+ FPS.

    Canvas accelleration should arrive soon to Firefox as Chrome has added HW acceleration for the canvas element on Mac too and a software backend for WebGL (SwiftShader) and it would be sad if Mozilla lagged on these useful features for the future of HTML5, especially for the HW accelerated canvas.

    March 30th, 2012 at 02:17

  290. r

    HOW ABOUT AN EASY ..STEP BY STEP…EXPLAINATION…
    & HOW TO
    implement & re-test hardware acceleration.
    for us “non-geeks”
    without this the article falls far short in “utility” for most of use FFX users – IMHO

    July 8th, 2012 at 10:35

  291. SOE Cpt. Samantha Liang

    1. Go to the site mentioned below, run the test and record your FPS.
    2. Turn on acceleration (Options – Advanced – General)
    3. Try the test again. Your fps should be higher. :D

    The test is at:
    https://developer.mozilla.org/media/uploads/demos/p/a/paulrouget/8bfba7f0b6c62d877a2b82dd5e10931e/hacksmozillaorg-achi_1334270447_demo_package/HWACCEL/

    o_O

    July 9th, 2012 at 14:59

  292. jools

    Using win7 64-bit, Dualcore 2,4 Ghz, 4 Gb RAM, Nvidia Geforce GTX 460:

    Firefox: 8 FPS
    Opera: 15 FPS
    Chrome: +60 FPS

    August 19th, 2012 at 07:34

  293. Anonymous

    Intel i7 2600k, OC’D to 4.6 GHZ
    Intel Z68
    16 GB DDR3-1600
    Nvidia GTX 580, Dual SLI
    Windows 7 Professional x64
    FF 15.0.1

    60+ FPS. Every time. :D

    September 15th, 2012 at 15:28

  294. Lars-Erik Østerud

    After the last beta update my computer (Dell Optiplex 755) with WinXP Pro SP3 almost halts completly when hardware acceleration enabled. Hasn’t been this way before, but now I have to disable hardware accelaeration to use FF.

    November 29th, 2012 at 02:30

    1. maximi89

      http://nightly.mozilla.org/

      November 29th, 2012 at 21:12

  295. maximi89

    Try http://nightly.mozilla.com with HW enabled

    November 29th, 2012 at 21:10

  296. maximi89

    Sorry, http://nightly.mozilla.org ORG

    November 29th, 2012 at 21:11

  297. ABC

    i5 3570K
    550ti
    Win7 x64

    60+ fps… where’s the 60+ test?

    December 1st, 2012 at 19:22

  298. Wigster

    Win 7 x64, Core 2 Duo P9500, NVidia Quadro NVS 160M mobile gfx chipset with v307 (current) drivers.

    FF18 and 17 both very slow when HW acceleration enabled (scrolling, tab switching, typing into forms, etc.), but HW tests are v fast (60 fps in the above demo).

    Disable HW acceleration: scrolling, typing, tab switching very fast. The above demo gets 15 fps.

    When I was upgrading my drivers from v 301, DirectWrite (anti-aliasing on the fonts) got switched off and things were fast. When I rebooted it was back to slow, but DirectWrite works ok.

    December 2nd, 2012 at 07:11

  299. ATI_Radeon

    Definitley something wrong with a measley 2FPS on a PC with an ATI Radeon 200M (IGC)

    RESULT: 50 fps

    HARDWARE:
    Dothan 780 – 2.267GHz
    ATI Xpress 200M (128MB video RAM)

    SOFTWARE:
    Win7 (SP1)
    IE9
    ATI Catalyst 9.3 (Modded)

    AND ………………..full IE9 brwoser hardware acceleration enabled.

    January 25th, 2013 at 01:21

  300. kathy

    i am just trying to find out a simple answer to how to prevent future adobe crashes and to keep my firefox from hanging all the time.

    February 25th, 2013 at 19:41

    1. Ron

      The Flashblock add-on FTW!!!

      Seriously, it and AdBlock Plus are probably the two most useful bits of code ever written.

      February 26th, 2013 at 17:22

  301. al

    http://www.techlivez.com/2011/03/how-to-enabledisable-gpu-acceleration-in-ie-chrome-firefox/

    this link shows how to change your settings to enable on ie, google, and ffox.

    February 27th, 2013 at 20:35

  302. Shekhar

    When I dont have GPU, here is the result:
    Chrome v 26 = 60+ fps
    Firefox v 20 = 17 fps
    Safari 5 = 7 fps,

    And Firefox gets Screen Lagging largely. Not recommended to use as of now!

    April 8th, 2013 at 03:15

  303. Ron

    My results (52 fps) are slower now, with supposedly faster h/w, than they were 2 years ago.

    April 8th, 2013 at 14:28

Comments are closed for this article.