"Please note Palemoon was run on a clean profile, whereas Firefox and Waterfox used heavily used profiles."
So Pale Moon should have had the advantage? Or at least it was intended to imply that.. Anyway I'm kind of skeptical about those benchmarks, except for the Sunspider and Fishbowl which mirror my own results so I made a post on their forum.
Ryrynz wrote:MrAlex, how do you get a 500,000+ score on Browsermark with Firefox? And even more so, how do you achieve greater than 550,000 with Pale Moon and Waterfox?
I'm running an i7 3570K (default clock) with Intel HD 4000 and I can only get 424338 with a blank 32bit Firefox profile. I also ran a blank Firefox profile on a Q9550 (default clock) with a Radeon HD5850 and scored 380611, so this really doesn't stack up with the results you have posted. Were you testing x64 builds of Firefox? If so which version? My results should be higher than the i7 960 results as the 3570 is a faster CPU.
Also, how is Fishbowl benchmarked in your results? The only two options I can see is selecting auto and have the browser give an upper limit of fish before it drops below 60FPS (~740 fish on my system with Waterfox) or you can benchmark a set number of fish and measure the FPS (2000 fish ~20FPS, 1750 Fish ~22 FPS)
Just FYI: 64bit browsers score lower in most benchmarks vs 32bit ones so comparing to Firefox 32bit with the typical benchmarks probably isn't a good idea, please read the following post from Moonchild @ the Pale Moon forums Here (32-bit versus 64-bit and tight loops)
The benchmark results should ideally be redone, over multiple systems with different specs for a good cross comparison either with blank profiles only
or two sets of benchmarks one blank the other not across each browser, consistency is key to valid benchmarking.
Although by the looks of it the only other browser you could properly compare to is Pale Moon as that's the only 64bit Firefox browser that's not alpha code, which kind of defeats the purpose of benchmarking Waterfox really as Waterfox is meant to serve as an alternative to Firefox (which you can't benchmark against very well due to the reasons mentioned in the link above from Moonchild)
I've often seen Waterfox on my system benchmark as slower than Firefox (Same goes for 64bit Pale Moon) so it might just be a good idea to remove the benchmarking page altogether as it really doesn't highlight the true strengths of a 64bit Firefox.
Unless of course you just want to have it out with Pale Moon...