Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless.

How about we compile some results right here?

Below is what I get on an AMD Phenom II X4 965 PC with 8 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.2.0-48-generic x86_64.

— Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0

    Score:      115
    binarytrees 56.978 seconds
    scimark     1.79   MFLOPS
    startup     0.431  seconds

    ~> lua scimark.lua
    FFT        14.65  [1024]
    SOR        30.41  [100]
    MC          9.32  
    SPARSE     19.32  [1000, 5000]
    LU         23.70  [100]

    SciMark    19.48  [small problem sizes]

    ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72
    stretch tree of depth 15     check: -1
    53974    trees of depth 4    check: -53974
    13493    trees of depth 6    check: -13492
    3373     trees of depth 8    check: -3372
    843      trees of depth 10   check: -842
    210      trees of depth 12   check: -210
    52       trees of depth 14   check: -52
    long lived tree of depth 14  check: -1
    lua binarytrees.lua 14.72  5,99s user 0,01s system 99% cpu 6,001 total

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2076712 (the page includes detailed PC specifications)

Edit: redid the native benchmarks with Lua 5.2.2.

-----

Edit 2: The same set of benchmarks gives the following results on a ThinkPad X61s laptop with a Core 2 Duo L7500 CPU and 4 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.5.0-32-generic x86_64:

— Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0

    Score:      59
    binarytrees 117.675 seconds
    scimark     0.95    MFLOPS
    startup     0.822   seconds

    ~> lua scimark.lua
    FFT         6.55  [1024]
    SOR        15.36  [100]
    MC          4.11  
    SPARSE     10.24  [1000, 5000]
    LU         12.40  [100]

    SciMark     8.73  [small problem sizes]

    ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72
    stretch tree of depth 15     check: -1
    53974    trees of depth 4    check: -53974
    13493    trees of depth 6    check: -13492
    3373     trees of depth 8    check: -3372
    843      trees of depth 10   check: -842
    210      trees of depth 12   check: -210
    52       trees of depth 14   check: -52
    long lived tree of depth 14  check: -1
    lua binarytrees.lua 14.72  9,63s user 0,04s system 99% cpu 9,713 total

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2077111

John Howard is very cool. He already created the JägerMonkey and IonMonkey logo for us. We print them on shirts, cards and posters.

http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2011/01/jagermonkey_i... http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2012/02/its_ion_monke...

Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless.

The page explains how to run them natively as well.

performance is 3 orders of magnitude worse than native high performing code.

Performance depends on the browser, which did you test on (there are some notes about that on the page)? Also, you can't just compare FLOPS in one test to a theoretical maximal FLOPS on your CPU (or another test), since it depends on the code being run.

This is going to be tracked in realtime here, including a comparison to native,

http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm...

(but so far it hasn't shown results for that test yet, just an empty slot, hopefully later today though).

For the sake of sharing my results using my low end laptop:

  Score:        34
  binarytrees   206.886 seconds
  scimark       0.49    MFLOPS
  startup       1.19    seconds

And as you say without other results at the page to compare I'm not sure how bad or good this is.