×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Web Browser Grand Prix

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-throwdown dept.

Firefox 273

An anonymous reader writes "After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest. How does your favorite land in the rankings?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

A link to the article would be nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373356)

Really, it would.

Re:A link to the article would be nice. (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373406)

The link [tomshardware.com] was in the original submission. ScuttleMonkey apparently is too much of an idiot to remember to have copied that along when posting.

Re:A link to the article would be nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373410)

And I thought that people mistaking a blog post about Facebook for Facebook [readwriteweb.com] meant the end of humanity. Now articles are getting posted without links? Of course we can google everything, but what are we lazy people going to do if we don't know what a URL bar is and only use our internets to play Farmville?

Re:A link to the article would be nice. (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374174)

It's not like we read the article anyway. I came here looking for the summary posting saying which browser Tom declared the current winner. I must not have read far enough down because it wasn't in the First Post (or the second - aka the first REAL post)......

Slashdotted (1)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373370)

The site is Slashdotted so hard, the link was removed from the summary to give the poor guys a break.

Re:Slashdotted (5, Funny)

number17 (952777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373450)

No, it's just slow because you are using IE.

Re:Slashdotted (-1, Troll)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373794)

No, its probably slow because people have plugins enabled in firefox that do 12,000 requests to the webserver at the same time and also do prefetch link caching on all the links and stuff.

Link (4, Informative)

mingot (665080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373376)

Re:Link (4, Insightful)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373570)

A lot of these speed tests always compare javascript performance, which I have to say matters less for me on a day to day usage than other things.

At the end of the article (10 pages later), they do break it out into categories. The winner of the 'page load' category is: Firefox.

I care about other things as well, startup times for example (won by Opera), but if I had to pick one most important category for me, it's page load times. YMMV, obviously.

Shortcut to summary: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-10.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Link (3, Insightful)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373972)

I care about other things as well, startup times for example (won by Opera), but if I had to pick one most important category for me, it's page load times. YMMV, obviously.

I care about security and safety, so I just avoid IE. I care about privacy so I avoid Chrome. I care about bloatness so I avoid Opera. I care about functionality so I choose Firefox. I think it's the lesser of all evils. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Link (2, Informative)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373622)

And the conclusions:

Category / Test: Overall Winner

Startup Times: Opera

Memory Usage: Firefox

Page Load Times: Firefox

HTML: Safari

CSS: Safari

Tables: Safari

JavaScript: Chrome

PeaceKeeper: Opera

Acid3: Chrome

DOM: Chrome

Flash: Opera

Java: Opera

SilverLight: Firefox / Internet Explorer

Re:Link (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373766)

Memory Usage Recount.

He just did static 'load page look at memory usage' tests. Which is fine. If you only load 10 tabs of pages and never visit anything else.

Firefox constantly eats memory on my MacBook. If I have both Firefox and Photoshop open, Firefox consistently eats more memory than Photoshop. Things will grind to a halt until I kill Firefox.

It was enough to get me to jump ship to Chromium, where aside from the occasional Flash Plug-crash, doesn't require being reset every hour.

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373958)

I highly doubt they measured it properly because I'm confident Chrome beats a lof of the competition. Chrome forks each tab in a new process. If it does things intelligently, which I'm sure it does, it makes sure as much as possible of the browser is initialized off of the process is forked. I'm pretty sure Win32 is the same as Linux w.r.t forks - those pages are mapped COW and don't actually impact the memory usage.

What you need to do is count the unique number of pages, or look at the the private memory usage of each process & add in the shared memory usage of 1 process.

Re:Link (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31374128)

Windows doesn't even have fork(), you newb.

Re:Link (2, Insightful)

ChronoReverse (858838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374010)

I'm curious as to which version you're using, whether you used a clean profile, and which plugins you're using.

My own testing of Firefox doesn't ever show the massive memory leaks often claimed.

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31374116)

This is latch and load here. There is illicit ware being added to the browser when it visits sites.

A point needs to be contended that some of these browsers are not telep minded and have a very simple feel. In addition they do not all do exactly the same thing.

I don't think that the browsers are all visiting the same page, or even mirror of the site. Sites have more than one central now.

Unfortunately... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373382)

Unfortunately for CmdrTaco he still wins the Micropenis Grand Prix though kdawson isn't far behind in 2nd.

My browser is so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373392)

It doesn't even have a link to the article.

I bet if you included a link I'd find out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373412)

I really like to use Internet Explorer 3, I hope they tested it.

Of course ... (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373434)

I'm sure the loading times of all browsers would be faster if the "article" wasn't spread over 11 damn pages ...

Perhaps they could run comparative tests on ad-blocked and flash-blocked vs vanilla spam versions ?

And am I the only one who finds it fucking cynical in the extreme, to force you to surrender your email address just so you can use the printable version and skip the advertising crud ?

Re:Of course ... (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373462)

And am I the only one who finds it fucking cynical in the extreme, to force you to surrender your email address just so you can use the printable version and skip the advertising crud ?

They only want to provide such a feature to members of the site. What's cynical about that?

Re:Of course ... (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373490)

Because I am worth more than the 0.001 cents they will get for selling my email to spammers ?

Re:Of course ... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373546)

Because I am worth more than the 0.001 cents they will get for selling my email to spammers ?

Since when did they ever do such a thing? Secondly, even if they did what is cynical about that?

Re:Of course ... (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373868)

Because I am worth more than the 0.001 cents they will get for selling my email to spammers ?

Since when did they ever do such a thing? Secondly, even if they did what is cynical about that?

lol.

Re:Of course ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31374268)

If you are silly enough to use your current email for registering for these sites, that's up to you. Create a new gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc. address that you never ever have to look at and use that for registering. no worries :)

Re:Of course ... (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373678)

Yes, because chances are everyone else here knows how to properly use the word 'cynical'.

Re:Of course ... (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373778)

I stand corrected, there is apparently a mod here who doesn't know what it means either and thought me deserving of an overrated moderation (the most overrated of moderations...). I'll clear this up:

cynical - distrusting or disparaging the motives of others.

Tom's Hardware isn't being cynical, he is being cynical. This isn't just a minor usage error, he got it completely in reverse.

But...but... (2, Funny)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373438)

"After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest. How does your favorite land in the rankings?"

I use Lynx you insensitive clod!

You newbie (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373566)

Lynx is for newbies. Real men telnet to port 80 and type in the HTTP headers manually, then parse the response in their minds.

Re:You newbie (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373956)

Why is there a 'then'. It should be done instantly, else you ain't a real one!

Re:You newbie (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374036)

Telnet is for boys. Real men hold the cable up to their eyes and blink in the voltages representing the packets requesting the URL. The response is irrelevant.

Wimp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373626)

I use a telnet in a terminal. Right now, it's going to be a bitch posting this comment:

First try:

telnet http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/1544218/Web-Browser-Grand-Prix?art_pos=1:80 ..... how the fuck do I "click" on the "preview' button?? Shit! OK...

Fuck it. Where's Lynx./..

If you want a fast web browser... (0)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373456)

A text-based web browser like Lynx [wikipedia.org] is still faster than any graphical-based web browser.

Re:If you want a fast web browser... (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373534)

And netcat > /dev/null wins over even that, but for some strange reason people are interested in browsers that have more than the bare minimum of standards support.

Re:If you want a fast web browser... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373558)

Does it use Flash or HTML5 for video?

If you want a fast web browser... (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373624)

...block all ads with Privoxy and shut off Javacrap.

Re:If you want a fast web browser... (5, Insightful)

thomst (1640045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374136)

...block all ads with Privoxy and shut off Javacrap.

And then browse with blazing speed ... the 3 web sites that remain partially functional without Javastuff, that is.

Chrome = teh winnar! (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373468)

followed by Opera, then Safari, Firefox, and IE.

analysis and conclusions [tomshardware.com]

I just installed Opera 10.5 and it's decently good enough for me to continue using it .

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (2, Insightful)

roju (193642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373498)

Although Firefox somehow wins the "Page Load Times" category, which seems more important to me than javascript benchmark speed.

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373816)

What's weird, is looking at their page load time benchmarks, it's only first for Tom's Hardware... IE takes 2 out of the 5 sites, followed by FF, Chrome and IE at 1 each. What interests me, is the only load time that Chrome is slower than the average is YouTube. Couple that with its shoddy flash performance, and to me it indicates some kind of a bug or regression either with Flash itself, or with the plugin system inside Chrome. I use Chrome as a primary browser on Kubuntu, and I must say it is slow, but definitely faster than FF...

What's interesting, is that it shows Chrome losing on the memory front for all but 1 tab... This has more to do with the 1 process per tab model than it does with "inefficiencies", and paints a false picture (considering each of the rest use a single process for all tabs). If people understand the benefits of 1 process per tab, I think it justifies the added memory usage. I mean we're only talking about 146mb for 10 tabs. It's not like we're talking gigabytes...

Something I would like to see a lot more than this kind of benchmark is interface speed testing. How long does it take to switch between tabs? How long does it take to scroll to the bottom of a 1mb page. Etc... That's why I like Chrome better than the rest. Not because it's page load is faster, but because everything is faster (at least based on my non-scientific tests)... I'd also like to see some cross-platform testing. Sure, Chrome may win out on Windows. But what about on Ubuntu? What about on Mac? What about on Fedora? etc... This comes to an even harder point when you look at the shoddy flash implementation on Linux. The difference between 1st and 2nd may be a lot bigger than it is on Windows...

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (1)

roju (193642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374058)

An important question about the memory test: how does Windows Task Manager account for shared memory or clean copy-on-write segments? If each Chrome process shares 90% of its memory, then those test results are going to be highly misleading.

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (1, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373702)

Chrome was the winner, but unfortunately one of the JavaScript tests was the Google benchmark. Thats a facepalm for toms hardware this time.

I would love to see these tests done with only independent benchmarks.

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373800)

And one of them was Apple's, another was Mozilla's and another was an independent 3rd party's test suite.

Re:Chrome = teh winnar! (2, Informative)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373848)

Remove that test from the results, and Chrome still wins. But look at the results of that test. Chrome wins, yes. But not by a HUGE margin (the difference between second and third is larger than 1st and 2nd). At least it's not as bad as the Dromaeo test (Where Opera is out in front by so far, it seems more like a bug in the test than a win for Opera)...

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373872)

Only one browser in the list has adblock/noscript/flashblock.

Without those the other browsers are automatically losers no matter how fast they start up.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374002)

You are misinformed, I presume you are refering to Firefox, however Chrome and IE both have extensions to do roughly the same thing.

Just because you aren't aware of things outside your viewport of the universe doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374040)

Do tell. Since I've never found a per-site whitelister like NoScript on anything else.

IE and Facebook... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373492)

For whatever reason, Microsoft's browser loads the Facebook homepage with extreme haste. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera take second, third, and fourth (respectively). Safari takes almost twice as long as the second-place finisher Firefox, and more than four times as long as IE.

Probably because Facebook cuts out a lot of the functionality that IE wouldn’t support anyway?

Re:IE and Facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373906)

I don't see why they would need to, IE supports JavaScript, quite a lot from version 6.
It is no mystery how to get around the quirks of IE JavaScript.
Not to mention how JavaScript can be extended on as it is running. One library that gets around all the errors and you won't even need to rewrite any code. (if you done it right in the first place)

It almost makes me think that Microsoft purposefully selected it as some sort of "super speed boost" enhancement secretly hidden away in the bowls of IE8, because it is a popular website.
Of course, that is just the "DIE MICROSOFT DIE DIE DIE" part of me, logic shows me that it can't realistically be this due to Facebook being changed constantly.

Re:IE and Facebook... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373934)

Or because it's easier to render a page if you don't care about bugs. I'm guessing IE's score on the ACID tests and speed rending certain pages are related.

In absolute terms, they're all slow. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373510)

Sure, Chrome is relatively faster than Opera, which is relatively faster than Firefox, which is relatively faster that IE.

That still doesn't change the fact that, in absolute terms, they're all horribly slow for the comparatively simple tasks that they do. And we know exactly what the problem is: JavaScript.

JavaScript is a hack. Nothing more, nothing less. It was originally meant to allow simple event handling. Unfortunately, some people took it seriously, and now it has become a "first-class" programming language, although in every single way it just plain shouldn't be.

Life would be so much better if we had better-designed and better-implemented languages available in the browser. It's not like we don't already have them; we do! Python, Perl, Ruby, Tcl, Lua, and Scheme are just a few.

We just need Google, Apple, Opera and Mozilla to realize that JavaScript needs to go. Together they can make any one of those aforementioned scripting languages widely supported. Browser performance will skyrocket, developing client-side web applications will become much more tolerable, and most importantly, nobody will have any reason to use JavaScript.

Fuck. That. Multipage shit (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373548)

Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off. If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off.

I was mildly interested in this because I had compared a lot of different browsers once and was interested to see how another site would do it.
Then I see the usual multipage shit, a quick glance at noscript and adblock were slightly reassuring despite the bullshit ad displayed on the side for windows 7/vista whatever.
So there's a print button, good enough. I click on it and it fucking wants me to subscribe. FUCK THAT MULTIPAGE SHIT.
Goddamn it, I close all these websites once I realise the shit they're pulling. Y'know what? Autopager shouldn't be used on these sites till you're sure you are blocking all their ads. Perhaps throw in an option to download all the images over and over to use their bandwidth while you click forward twenty times.
Fucking ban all stories with main links like these. Don't need that shit, they don't need the traffic if they're going to annoy the shit out of me *cough* I mean, 'people' like this.
Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off. If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off. Hell I should put that at the top. Annoy the shit out of me and the site gets ignored and ad-block/noscript gets new rules to block your stupid shit.

Re:Fuck. That. Multipage shit (1, Insightful)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373708)

Too lazy to move your finger to click a mouse to continue reading? Sad...

Re:Fuck. That. Multipage shit (1, Flamebait)

thatblackguy (1132805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373832)

It is making the user click more to watch more of their ads. It's a needless restriction and that's why it sucks.

Re:Fuck. That. Multipage shit (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374034)

If you pay for a subscription perhaps you can turn off the ads ... otherwise you are getting the article in exchange for viewing ads.

You of course have the option to not view the ads or click continue in exchange they have the option to not deliver it to you. Simple really, but thanks for making sure everyone knows how you feel, its very important that we continue to get this worthless contributions to the discussion, slashdot could not exist as we know it without them.

Re:Fuck. That. Multipage shit (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374106)

I didn’t read any of the ads, until I was reading the comments and finally decided to load it once with adblock turned off to find out why people were complaining about Tom’s taking forever to load.

WebKit For The Win (0, Troll)

cadeon (977561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373574)

It's not so much the browser as it is the renderer, and, well, Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.

And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world.

Re:WebKit For The Win (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373822)

Good job apple fan. Always able to turn any news into good news for apple.

There's more to a browser that the renderer. Chrome has a better javascript engine than Safari. Also, Opera and Gecko look pretty good in the rendering department, with Firefox taking the page load times benchmark.

In conclusion, stop sucking on Steve Jobs' cock, you don't know where it's been.

I don't think mine is listed. (0, Redundant)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373664)

Mine being IE6. Now, the question remains. Will this comment be moderated as...
Troll,
Funny,
or something else?
I guess it depends on whether you think someone would be stupid enough to be using IE6 still. cough

Javashit (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373690)

Can we please stop measuring browser speed with javascript? Javascript is shit 99% of the time.

And before you get any ideas, flash is shit 99.9% of the time.

How about browser makers focus on making popular sites suck less ass? Imagine if IE9/FF4 came with official mods for sites. Load facebook.com? Get it without the bullshit!

You can obviously already do this with great control with plugins for various browsers, but for it to make any difference for the average user it has to be built in, officially supported, and transparent.

If facebook doesn't like it, fine, let them get into an arms race with the browsers, just like how advertisers are starting to fight back against adblockers (who are also fighting back).

I'm sick of the shitty shitty shit on the web.
Measuring how fast a browser can wade through that shit is pointless. How about you measure how well a browser power washes that shit off of the site before serving it up to me?

IGN.com as viewed by
- Default IE8 reference
- IE9's shitripper
- FF4's shitripper
- FF3.6 + ABP + NS
- Chrome 2's shitripper
- etc.

That's a comparison I'd like to see. And if that comparison got attention, maybe, just maybe, sites would be designed with less shit.

Re:Javashit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373856)

Because some people don't use Facebook or those other teen gossip sites and we don't want that extra bloat in our browsers. That is on top of the whole "Mozilla/Google/Opera/Apple shilling for whatever post-your-pic-and-network-with-people-you-will-never-meet" vibe it would give off.

is Safari startup time really surprising? (4, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373698)

Besides the obligatory browser code, Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by Safari - CoreFoundation, CoreGraphics, CFNetwork, the Objective-C runtime, and its own GUI (a limited Win32 port of Cocoa?). It also uses libraries that could be shared and/or duplicate builtin Windows functionality - such as sqlite3, zlib, libxml2, libxslt, and pthreads. (I imagine it uses its own SSL implementation too.)

The IE startup time seems higher than it should, because it uses the most Win32 functionality. It uses threading, SSL, XML, etc. from Win32.

Favorite Browser (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373738)

How does your favorite land in the rankings?

If it's your favorite browser, what does it matter how fast it is?

Page load times... (3, Interesting)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373742)

...was won by Firefox, according to the summary at the end. Isn't that what the average user cares most about? How fast a page loads?

Re:Page load times... (3, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373966)

I wonder how reliable the JS script they've used to determine when page has finished loading really is. Could it be that browsers that report higher scores in the test are simply more truthful about what they finished loading? (e.g. do all of them correctly account for plugins?).

There's one other thing. Historically, the usual trick employed by browsers is to delay rendering the page until it is partially loaded, so as to not constantly re-render. This speeds up the overall page load, but starting to render faster may well show the important parts of the page (those that user cares about) earlier, and if the renderer is fast enough, re-rendering the page repeatedly as it is being downloaded may look "smoother" from user's perspective, and be more usable.

I know that this setting is configurable for Opera, though I don't recall what the default one is. I think it's also configurable for Firefox. IE always has a pretty significant delay there, and I believe it's hardcoded. No idea about Chrome & Safari. Anyway, my point is that, if this setting varies by default, timing of complete page loads can give quite differing results which are not reflective of actual user experience.

Re:Page load times... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373996)

Also regarding memory usage... Opera has configurable memory cache setting. I've just checked what mine is - I don't recall changing it after installing 10.50 - and it's 200Mb. Looking at the tests they've done, none of them loaded enough tabs to fill that, so it is reasonable to assume that Opera just felt free to cache everything on loaded pages, and not clear the cache, since the limit isn't exceeded.

I wonder how the same test would go if they opened, say, 30 tabs...

Re:Page load times... (1)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374220)

Somewhat true, but I find firefoxe's memory usage and startup time to be really irritating. That and it's gotten cluttered. Chrome's sleekness was the first big reason I switched over. Only the URL bar and bookmark bar take up screen space. The rest of it is dynamially hidden (status bar) or compartimentalized (the settings and configure menus) into smaller areas so as to not take up as much space.

Page loading is well and good, but when it comes down to it, browser's physical size, resource footprint and startup time are more noticible to me.

Can't be a real Grand Prix (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373772)

The American contenders turned up

Functionality More Important Than Speed (4, Insightful)

amustic (1643505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373788)

Firefox may not be the fastest, but with its builtin function plus rich array of addons, it's the most useful.

Performance I care about is hard to measure (3, Insightful)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373908)

I care about things like responsiveness. How long does it take to redisplay after switching tabs or adjusting zoom? Is the UI still responsive when another tab/window is busy? Are scrolling and window resizing smooth? Will the browser respond well if the internet connection is lost / the system wakes up from sleep, when using AJAX applications like Gmail/Google Reader? (I had problems with one browser behaving badly with Gmail/Google Reader if the pages were open before entering sleep mode.) Will the browser perform well over RDP, VNC, or NX?

Start-up time isn't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time. Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory. Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things. Rendering/script delays are not noticeable on modern systems.

Re:Performance I care about is hard to measure (2, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374154)

I care about things like responsiveness. How long does it take to redisplay after switching tabs or adjusting zoom? Is the UI still responsive when another tab/window is busy?

Speaking of responsiveness, one neat thing about Opera 10.50 - all tab-specific dialogs are modal to the tab, not to the entire browser window. This means that, if a tab loading in background displays a JS alert, it doesn't suddenly pop up in your face requiring immediate attention - instead, the tab will get a marker indicating that something changed - and you can freely switch back and forth between tabs without closing the dialog first.

Speed and little more (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373936)

They included how well they ranked in the acid test, but most of the article was about raw speed. But for "best" there are more criteria to take into account. Features, availability of extensions (specially the ones you in particular need), OSs where it runs, security, matters at the moment of making a choice. But at least is a good clue that opera and chrome are usually the fastest ones, safari and firefox aren't so far, and IE is the worst choice is speed is an important factor.

The main debatable test was the specific sites benchmarks one, as it could had measured in good part how much tuned for specific browsers are those sites, but if are the kind of sites you visit more, probably could notice the difference (at least, until that sites acknowledge that worth optimizing for webkit or gecko too).

Lynx (1)

mederbil (1756400) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373938)

Non graphical web browsers, like Lynx will always be the fastest. Although the content is a little "slim", it loads pages faster.

Interesting... IE sucks... except when it counts. (1)

dtolman (688781) | more than 4 years ago | (#31373946)

IE did best or near best in the web browsing events most users will care about - page load time sfor popular sites like yahoo, facebook, or youtube.

So how does a web browser that apparently sucks at so many theoretical benchmarks, crush the competition in real world load times? Apparently it doesn't matter what you do, if major websites tailor themselves to you.

Memory Usage Test = Hardly "Real World" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31373964)

Unfortunately, the memory usage benchmarks seem very VERY far from "real world". 1, 5 and 10 tabs? Right now I have ~40 open in Firefox, and that might well climb to 70 or 80. Firefox handles this just fine.
Chrome unfortunately chews up 30Mb or so *per tab* - presumably the downside of the process separation. I find Chrome brilliant if you want to quickly go online and look something up, and I use it now and then for this kind of thing.

But my *real* browser - the one I always have open, the one containing all the pages I'm working on, the references I'm coding from, the news sites I plan to read at lunch later, and so on - will stay as Firefox. Chrome just dies under the load, certainly with "only" 4Gb of RAM.

Aside from that, the superior customisation options of Firefox would win it for me, though Chrome is certainly improving in this area.

How much of all these numbers are practical ? (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374008)

How do these numbers help me choose a browser ? When on any test - speed or memory - most browsers performed differently on different benchmarks from the same category ? I wish they also explained whether being second in a particular memory test is that bad. Besides, I use a lot of extensions in Mozilla that blocks flash, adblocks etc, how do those affect memory consumption and speed ? I wish there was some more details about these results, especially how the numbers translate to daily use.

won't switch to Chrome yet (1)

c_jonescc (528041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374024)

I really like Chrome, and according to Tom's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience, aesthetics aside. Yet, I can't make the switch.

I'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing. I switched to Opera way back when, solely for the gestures, and liked it so much I even sent them $20 (paying for a browser!). I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures' add on.

I'd really like to switch to Chrome, but simply cannot until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit. Right-clicking, or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious (which feels really lazy to say), when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab.

Re:won't switch to Chrome yet (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374178)

Keyboard shortcuts are far more useful and easy than mouse gestures, IMHO.

Re:won't switch to Chrome yet (1)

c_jonescc (528041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374270)

oops - I should have reinvestigated this before I posted. There is a gesture add on now.

I don't like keyboard work when casual surfing because I usually end up sitting way back from the keyboard and have a cuppa coffee in my hand.

Conclusion (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374050)

On the whole, there's really a single practical conclusion from those tests that is useful to a user:

Any browser is fast enough, so long as it's not IE.

Chrome memory usage (3, Informative)

l00sr (266426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374160)

Once again, calculating Chrome's memory usage is not as simple as summing the memory usage of all its processes, because shared libraries are only loaded once. It's unclear as to whether these benchmarks took this into account. More info here [chromium.org].

I love Chrome, but... (1)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374168)

It still has a lot of compatibility issues. Sites like Youtube, ESPN and others still have bugs in formating and video playback with Flash. I love the speed and it's my primary browser at this point, but if the bugs aren't fixed and a better ad-block isn't added soon, I will be disappointed.

Trying to read the article with the winner (1)

griffinme (930053) | more than 4 years ago | (#31374208)

I was trying to read the article with Chrome, the eventual winner, and these incredibly annoying ads took up a big chunk of the top left corner. This is with the AdBlock extension for Chrome. The ad was bad enough that it covered several words of the first sentences on each page. I thought that a nice experiment would be to load the page on Firefox. Hey, whadyaknow, the annoying ad is gone in Firefox. To me that says Firefox won the two most important categories. Mem usage and getting rid of annoying ads.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...