I'm sorry, I really wouldn't know what's happening there. On my Linux, Chromium works the best, Firefox can pass, Opera is a bit slower, and Epiphany (is that the name?) chokes a fair bit.
On i3, Windows things seem fine - I tried Edge, Chrome, and Firefox.
On Mac, I somehow managed to get it working based on Lambda Test web interface feedback, but I wouldn't know the real use performance.
i7 is meaningless... it could be a 4c/8t processor from over a decade ago that's slower then buttered toast today, or something much faster with big/little cores more recently.
I'm going to be honest. I don't understand Intel processor names, like at all. I thought i7 would give performance to a first order, but if that's not the case, I don't know how to tell what's in this machine.
- i-number (i.e. i3, i5, i7, i9) means rough idea of which features are included. For example: i3 is basic functionality, i7 will mean hyperthreading (although competition from AMD meant that this feature started become standard on all cpus)
- gen-number: (i.e. 1st gen through to 14th gen) means basically what version the chip is. Kind of like an iPhone 1 vs an iPhone 14, big difference at the start then only incremental differences about 2/3rds of the way through.
- inter-gen-number: (e.g. 400, 770, 900, etc...) means basically how good the chip in this generation is compared to other chips in this generation. Kind of like iPhone vs iPhone Pro, vs iPhone Pro Max.
- optional letter: (e.g. nothing, K, F, etc...) means basically any other info you should know about this chip. For example: "K" means the chip can be overclockable (runs hotter and requires more electricity for better performance), or "F" means the integrated graphics on this chip doesn't work so it's getting sold for cheaper and you'll need an external graphics card to see things, etc...
So the i7-14700k would be:
- i-number = i7
- gen-number = 14
- inter-gen-number = 700
- optional letter = k
A 14th-gen i7, which will be more powerful than an i5-14600, and a "K" on the end meaning it can be overclocked so we'll charge a little more on this chip.
In the author's defense - this is probably a prototype, hacked together without trying to optimize performance. You should not judge the idea by its realization's performance at this point in time.
It is true that I plan a custom renderer with scripting support, to replace the HTML version. From the tests I performed by now, it can be smoother and faster than the current version. But it is yet to be seen how well would a substitution to HTML catch up with the current state of art CSS+HTML+JS.
At some moment I had a version with cached bitmaps that simply flew fast and smooth. But, since HTML has some serious issues with rendering to bitmap from js, I had to pick the slower version with native real time HTML rendering.
