Got 2,984 running Chrome 38 and 8,778 on Firefox 33, but I think now it's just fair to wait for couple of iterations of Chrome to identify bottlenecks and fix them.
It's not uncommon for benchmarks to focus on some particular strength/weakness that is easily fixable. The same happened with Firefox and Octane 2.0.
I'm not sure if Chrome is ever going to catch up to Firefox here. It's been slower than Firefox at asm.js ever since it was announced, because Chrome doesn't do AOT compilation for it.
EDIT: Although I suppose JIT compilers would love asm.js as it has all the type info they want, but there's probably tons of overhead there thus explaining how Chrome has worse results.
Chrome is currently slower, but the v8 team is working on a new optimizing compiler called TurboFan. There are indications in the source code that it detects asm.js code as a compiler hint of some form, hopefully this means it will eventually get quite fast on that type of content.
I don't really understand how asm.js is any different...
you've still got applications compiled into binary blob, the difference between NaCl and asm.js being that asm.js just happens to be binary encoded as executable JavaScript.
I got 2,996 in Firefox and 1,277 in Chrome (2013 MacBook Air 13").
Interestingly, Chrome had much worse performance for float32 than float64... yet Firefox had slightly better performance. I guess the Chrome team implemented Math.fround yet none of the optimisations which make it useful!
http://pastie.org/9692975
My results, Chrome Version 38.0.2125.111 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 14.04