Let's say Browser A runs best on Site X, Browser B runs best on Site Y, and Browser C runs best on Site Z.

Games might be patched a few times after release but it's rare to see major performance changes after a couple months of patches.įrom a real world usage perspective, these benchmarks are useless. But once those fan curves are set (usually on the hottest day of the year) I can generally forget about them unless I reconfigure the build.Īnd web browser technology evolves pretty quickly, both on the client and server sides. I run benchmarks on my Windows PCs mostly to configure fan curves.

Some PC/game sites actually do this, running 10, 15, 20+ game benchmarks for a more useful measurement.Īfter all, it's not like I play one game or visit one website. Et cetera ad nauseam.Ī more useful analysis would comprise a suite of various benchmarks. Newer technologies like DLSS 3 Frame Generation might smooth out image playback but introduces input latency. With super sampling technologies in play, image quality is not quantified in benchmark results. Other games might favor larger memory caches, more memory bandwidth, etc. A game that benches fine on an 8GB card at 1080p might suck at 1440p because 8GB of VRAM is insufficient. Once again, each game title favors a certain combination of hardware (Intel, AMD, Nvidia, whatever) and software (DirectX, Vulcan, raytracing) technologies. It's similar to a single game graphics benchmark. Once congestion is eliminated, those pokey sites run fine. There are some websites that are reduced to helpless crawl when accessed on a slow and/or congested network while other sites run quite fine under identical conditions. When I browse the web, I end up on sites that use a wide range of different features, types of scripting, even code quality under differing circumstances. This is an excellent demonstration why I don't care much for browser benchmarks: each one favors a different browser engine.

Download Vivaldi браузер 6.1.3035.111