Cool. Downloading it now.

Neither link has a installer for it

kscott190

Neither link has a installer for it

You don't need an installer for the D2D version.  Just use 7-zip or an equivalent and unzip the contents and click on the "firefox.exe" file.  Put a shortcut to your desktop.


EDIT:
I am now using the non D2D 3.7a1pre version.  The Direct2D version leaves horizontal black lines across the page that are a result from scrolling web pages.  I cannot live with that.  It does it on two vastly different computers so it is definitely a problem with the code.

The regular version sure is fast though.

Nice find but is it just me or I cannot see anything different.

 Thanks luv2increase, It does seem a little quicker on heavy pages. I don't have the black lines like you mentioned but the text is really faded like deicida said. All my extensions and themes work with a little help form the Nightly Tester Tool. The just updated to work with the 3.7's...

To test this browser I ran Futuremarks Peacekeeper Browser Benchmark. The latest Firefox beta (3.6 Beta 4) outperforms it in most areas except for Complex Graphics which isn't included in the overall score. Anyone else run some tests?

deicida

To test this browser I ran Futuremarks Peacekeeper Browser Benchmark. The latest Firefox beta (3.6 Beta 4) outperforms it in most areas except for Complex Graphics which isn't included in the overall score. Anyone else run some tests?

I didn't even realize there was a beta "4" version of 3.6!  I am getting a little over 3200 in the Peacekeeper benchmark with 3.7a1pre.  I think I will install the 3.6 beta4 now :)

I will tell you something really really weird right now.  It is about Google Chrome. It doesn't matter if it is the beta or regular version.  I figured out a way to set my default zoom to 160% like I like it right.  Well, when I run Peacekeeper with the zoom enabled, I get around 2800 points with Chrome!!!!!  When the zoom is not enabled, I get well over 5000!!!  I tried two different ways to enable the zoom, and the results are always horrible no matter how I enable the zoom with Chrome!


EDIT: 
I see that the beta4 version of 3.6 was just released!  It looks a lot more advanced and stable than this 3.7a1pre; that is for sure.

Here is the link to the beta4 release!  ENJOY!

http://www.geek.com/artic...x-3-6-beta-4-20091127/


Here is the link to the beta4 download:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

Odd...

At first I thought this supported SLI.

I rebooted, and let my clocks drop down to 2D mode on my GPU.
Fired up Firefox, and the clocks remained at 2D speed.
Started the benchmark, and both sides of my 295 went into 3D Performance mode until the balls started:

Then one side dropped back down to 2D clock speeds.

Kept the browser open, and ran it a second time, but my second GPU never returned to 3D Performance mode.


Final conclusion, this does NOT support SLI mode. I wish it would...

would it even need sli mode? 

i mean i doubt its rendering to much to affect performance as they said something like cpus produced frames at 18 fps 

EDIT :  I figured out what was stopping Peacekeeper from working/loading, it was Adblock Plus or possibly the filters i use with AdBlock Plus but disabling AdBlock Plus allowed the Peacekeeper benchmark to run.

I cant even get the latest official release of firefox to complete this benchmark, just gets stuck at "loading test..." yet Internet Explorer and Goggle Chrome both start it within seconds, not sure why i dont use goggle since it scored over 5800 points, seems Mozilla, even a GPU accelerated version cant get those scores.

If anyone can shed any light on why Firefox 3.5.5, 3.6 Beta 4 and the 3.7 pre beta? wont run the test please let me know, i allow it to run Java, the Java app appears, the test looks like its going to start but it just sits at "5 minutes left" loading test...

EDIT got to love the score i got for Internet Explorer 8, always knew it was the Leet browser of choice.

So did any of you benchmark the GPU accelerated version to see how it comperes in the detail section. Seems only complex graphics get a boost so far. This is a very early version though and probably more of a proof of concept, I'm sure over time it could make more use of the GPU.

I just tried out Chrome because I thought it's supposed to be faster. I can get a higher benchmark score with Chrome but Firefox 3.6b4 is much faster at loading pages for me, there is a very noticeable difference. I have enabled pipelining in Firefox, but even without that Chrome still lags behind Firefox.

deicida

So did any of you benchmark the GPU accelerated version to see how it comperes in the detail section. Seems only complex graphics get a boost so far. This is a very early version though and probably more of a proof of concept, I'm sure over time it could make more use of the GPU.

Here is someone numbers for 3.5.5

Rendering                   2373
Social Netwroking       2449
Complex Graphics       5051
Data                           3622
DOM Operations         2181
Text Parsing               2302

and for the 3.6 Beta 4

Rendering                   3385  +1012 over 3.5.5
Social Netwroking       3837  +1388 over 3.5.5
Complex Graphics       7121  +2070 over 3.5.5
Data                           8673   +5051 over 3.5.5
DOM Operations         3454   +1273 over 3.5.5
Text Parsing               4530    +2228 over 3.5.5

Data seems to get a pretty big boost and this one one that Google Chrome gets a lower score on even though it has a higher Overall score than the GPU Accelerated/non-GPU Accelerated versions of Firefox.  Not sure how important this is compared to the other parts of the benchmark when it comes to real world surfing of the net but since Chrome is not GPU Accelerated yet this could be the area that really benefits from it.

If you were talking about comparing Internet Explorer 8 to the GPU Acelerated Internet Explorer 9 i am not sure if you can get access to it yet or how far along in development it is.

odd...

Maybe it doesn't need 3D at all?

(I do have my Nvidia Control Panel set to 'Max Performance mode', not 'Adaptive'.)

Could be why I jumped to 3D Clock speeds at all?