7 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

All I can tell you for 1,234,567.89%

:OT
Just a small mathematical note. Probabilities always come from an interval I=[0,1]=[0%,100%], strictly according to axomatics.
:END OF OT

On 5/15/2024 at 12:14 AM, Dixel said:

What about video acceleration? I remember you wanted to force it. were you able to achieve? Thanks.

Nothing using GPU on Chromium works on XP. Waste of good hardware.

10 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Nothing using GPU on Chromium works on XP. Waste of good hardware.

Not necessarily.  Here is my chalkboard benchmark result for Thorium on XP:



Now here is the same benchmark for Thorium on my Windows 7 machine that sports a 1st gen Radeon GCN variant (HD7770):

 

As you can see, GPU rasterization isn't all that its cracked up to be...  Perhaps it's faster on much newer GPUs, but you often get better performance from Chrome by disabling it.

Now other GPU acceleration (video acceleration, WebGL) would probably be nice...  Windows XP is perfectly capable of that...  Maybe someone can write a redirection driver from DirectX12 to DirectX9 for Chrome.

Default GPU rasterization:

Disabled GPU rasterization:

Strangely enough, Tampermonkey does not run correctly in Thorium. In my installation, scripts were regularly simply not loaded. So I replaced it with Violentmonkey, which seems to work more reliably in Thorium. 

1 hour ago, mockingbird said:

Here is my chalkboard benchmark result for Thorium on XP:

Mine (both on the same box).

XP:

7:

Unexpected (Speedometer 2/3 scores better on 7)

7 with "Use graphics acceleration when available" off:

 

P.S. Not sure what that benchmark tests, but scrolling without HW acceleration feels choppy (~20fps) on this box, smooth/fluid (screen refresh rate) with HW acceleration on.

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by 66cats

57 minutes ago, mockingbird said:

Now here is the same benchmark for Thorium on my Windows 7 machine

... But why is Thorium reported to be Google Chrome 109 there? For consistency, weren't you supposed to test the same Thorium variant but on different OS (XP vs 7) ? 

Is that FOUR point eighty?  Or NINE point eighty?  That font is TERRIBLE.

The last two days, I have tested Thorium vs. Supermium on my Pentium 4 32-bit system. So far, Thorium works indeed better, more reliable and smoother than Supermium under my hardware conditions. And I assume why. My Thorium version is a special SSE2 variant and adapted to this instruction set. At least, this could be a reason. 

XP single-core -

360Chrome [86]  ==  23.04 seconds
Chrome 92  ==  15.92 seconds
Chrome 108  ==  26.52 seconds
Thorium  ==  18.02 seconds
Supermium  ==  appeared to lock up at 3.24 seconds, waited anyway, appeared to lock up at 80.99 seconds, waited some more, still waiting, still waiting, 381.74 seconds

Granted, I may be behind a version on both my Thorium and my Supermium.
And the author of Supermium does explicitly advise not to run on single-core (but this is supposed to be for OLD computers, so I'm running on an OLD computer).

I'll hit "run again", walk to fast food down the road, and see if a second run improves.

Scratch that.  Computer locked up at 100% and I had to unplug the d@mn thing to reboot!

Supermium really really REALY hates single-core computers!

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by NotHereToPlayGames

And so that everyone has something to laugh about , I am solemnly publishing the result of my Thorium test on my old Windows XP sweetheart:

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

So far, Thorium works indeed better, more reliable and smoother than Supermium under my hardware conditions.

Agreed!  Same here.  Single-core CPU, XP x86, IBM ThinkPad T42.

This T42 is on its "last leg", I only keep it around to tune aftermarket turbo's and hex-edit Engine Control Modules.

I am in-process of migrating all of my engine tuning software to something else - because one of these days, it is SUPERMIUM that is going to outright KILL this laptop!