Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Chrome 27, Firefox 22, IE10, And Opera Next, Benchmarked

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
June 30, 2013 9:07:17 PM

No, the Onus is not on Google; I'm using www.startpage.com for my searches.

While this is interesting, I still encounter built-in pages (such as on routers or other network devices) that will not render cleanly in Firefox, but are perfect in IE. More often than not though, pages that would be filled with nuisance ads and popups are cleaned up nicely by Firefox with AdBlock+ and NoScript.
Score
-4
June 30, 2013 9:22:14 PM

A good test is rendering a heavy site like Huffington Post. They use a ton of flash and java scripts.
Score
4
June 30, 2013 9:26:51 PM

While benchmarks are the way to compare browsers, they do not represent the feel you get- firefox might be faster but still feels sluggish compared to chrome or opera(the stable one).
Score
-16
June 30, 2013 9:32:05 PM

I would like to see benchmarks on page start up, and load times comparing ssd, hard drives, and ram drives. Maybe I missed these an a previous article, but I feel since ssd's and ram drives are getting more popular, benchmarks should prove or dispel the the 'so called' benefits they bring.

I have both and start up times for IE are quick but page load times are horrendously slow, whereas FF has slow start up times but superfast page load times. It's possible that add-ons are contributing to that.
Score
4
June 30, 2013 9:35:09 PM

Ever since I have compared Firefox and Chrome I've always found Chrome to start much faster (I'm running the Dev channel and my wife uses the Stable channel and they both take maybe 1 - 2 seconds to start cold or hot). Only IE beats both of them. Maybe Firefox 22 is that much faster and worth a try, but seeing as Chrome did so well in most categories I'll probably stick with it.
Score
0
June 30, 2013 10:00:20 PM

Having move back to Firefox a couple years ago after Chrome, I don't intend to use Chrome (or any other browser) regularly anymore. I still give Chrome 2-3 tries a week (just to compare things) but Chrome isn't better than FF in 3 things:

1) Pages load noticeably slower
2) Memory usage is indeed high (as seen in the benchmark above)
3) FF add-ons are much better than chrome extensions.

I never noticed any startup time difference for both FF and Chrome; it's possible they're both fast enough that it doesn't even matter at this point. I also like the FF toolbars better although that's really more of a personal preference. I've never tried maxthon though; heard it's pretty good.
Score
6
June 30, 2013 10:09:55 PM

I've never really noticed a difference in browsers speed wise. Sure some load pages faster than others, and some have issues with certain pages. But in the end they all take me to the same place. I use Firefox 95% of the time at home with adblock+, if I encounter an issue I clear cache, if it still has issues I switch to IE 10, usually this is all I need to do but once in a while IE has problems with a page and I just move on to something else. At work I'm stuck using IE10. The speed of a browser can also be affected by other factors like the speed of your connection, how many devices are on your network, what tasks your doing on the computer at the same time like gaming, downloading, streaming movies (netflix, hulu), and your hardware. You're not going to get much responsiveness on a 5yr old celeron w/2gb ram and Win XP while you're downloading a game, watching youtube and the A/V suite scans your computer in the background, and there's 5 other people all sharing your 10Mbps network. Which describes probably 50% of the users out there in the real world.
Score
0
June 30, 2013 10:11:26 PM

Opera Next (and every other browser) is a significant step down in terms of features/customization from the current version.

I'll miss a hell of a lot of stuff when I move off Presto-based Opera.
Score
6
June 30, 2013 10:22:16 PM

Well done on this test, I actually found the test results genuinely helpful and your summary/conclusion to be well thought out.

Still, this test shows us once more, that no modern browser - I exclude Opera from this, since it isn't a maintained release anymore - must absolutely be replaced by the winner of such tests. If you don't mind performance weaknesses of the Internet Explorer in certain areas, or if your most-accessed websites don't require you to use a certain alternative, then even Microsoft's browser of choice can be okay for daily use (if only as an engine in products like Avant, Maxthon, etc).

The one thing I'm a bit curious about: why does Opera Next suddenly behave so differently from Chrome? Yes, there's a difference between Chrome 27 (WebKit) and Opera Next (Blink = Chrome 28), but if that's the only reason for the browser's weaker showing, then the future of Chrome doesn't look too good. What's your take on this?
Score
-1
June 30, 2013 10:31:48 PM

I dont know how useful in this review when they are tested all the browser on a 1155 super computer, nobody is going to tell the diff if the browser is 0.25sec faster. Get some Brazos, Atom and run the test, these are the platform have problems with web browsing.
Score
13
June 30, 2013 10:42:24 PM

I've used FF for quite a while and have been very happy with the last few releases. Things definitely seems generally zippier and I've WAY less pages with load errors. I've also got my computer, tablet, and phone FireFox copies all sync'd together and love that it just works.
Score
6
June 30, 2013 10:57:36 PM

When the hell did Intel release an i5 3770K ?
Score
3
June 30, 2013 11:05:06 PM

Quote:
We're now on an Ivy Bridge-based Core i5


I'm guessing it should have said i5-3570K.
Score
3
June 30, 2013 11:08:26 PM

Yep I'm gonna upgrade my Firefox.
Score
6
June 30, 2013 11:35:53 PM

Interesting test. I haven't heard of Opera Next, but now I'll definitely be keeping my eye on it. I use Google Chrome and have noticed it's slower loading speed (both to open Chrome and a webpage) the past update, and judging by the test results, the changes are significant.

Can I make a request for your next test? Try comparing SSDs and HDDs in some of the tests, especially cold boot. They are becoming more and more popular, and at least with some of these tests, I imagine they do have a significant impact on performance.
Score
2
June 30, 2013 11:39:05 PM

Opera Next is just the development/beta fork of Opera. They have the nice extra that you get separate data storage - you can have both installed at the same time.

When the Chromium-based version becomes stable, it will be called Opera.
Score
0
June 30, 2013 11:55:42 PM

Somewhat useless, yes. As they are from the same codebase they should perform relatively similar to on windows though.
Score
1
June 30, 2013 11:57:51 PM

Good on you Firefox, keep it up!

I love customizability and plug-in support of Firefox. I also love the separate address and search bars. If I type "IBM" into the address bar I want to go directly to the website, if I want to search then I'll use the search bar. Unfortunately, whenever I install Firefox, I have to re-enable the "go directly to the website" ability in the address bar because, starting with Firefox 4, some dork at Mozilla changed the functionality of the address bar.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 12:03:29 AM

You can do all that in Opera (though I'm still kind of lost as to why they keep the search bar, given they were the first to allow searching from the address bar).

Up/down keys are your friend.

One other pet peeve I have is that the autopredict in browsers have a habit of interpreting '192.168.1.1' as '192.168.1.104', if you visit the latter more frequently. Someone disable autopredict for IP addresses, and I will use your browser.
Score
2
July 1, 2013 1:03:15 AM

I always wondered why you don't test flash performance. Is it because it only depends on adobe flash player and not the browser?
Score
3
July 1, 2013 1:22:59 AM

Good job FF.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 3:27:22 AM

Hey guys, you got Chrome wrong. Version 27 is still Webkit. From 28 onwards it will be officially Blink.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 3:28:35 AM

Also, if you are putting Android an iOS there, you should put WP8 at IE10 also. It's only fair.
Score
0
July 1, 2013 3:31:08 AM

Can you please please also add Maxthon to the Gran Prix mix?
Score
-2
July 1, 2013 3:48:44 AM

Chrome fails OVER 25 % of page loads? That is just pathetic.
Score
6
July 1, 2013 3:50:25 AM

any chance for linux benchmark?
Score
2
July 1, 2013 3:53:23 AM

I don't want to sound like a snob, but I really don't care what this benchmark says about IE10 this time around. It felt and it still feels like the freakin' fastest thing around.
Score
-5
July 1, 2013 3:57:23 AM

Also, ignoring the actual scores, Opera 12.15 holds REMARKABLY well for a browser launched 7 months ago. IE had 1 update, FF had 5 updates, Chrome had 4 updates. And Opera holds up fairly well without using any kind of HWA or WebGL. That is just marvelous engineering.


Also, why don't you guys EVER use Opera 12.15 x64? It's even faster than the the x86 version. It's not Opera's fault their the only ones leveraging x64.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 4:09:58 AM

It's generally considered bad etiquette to post several times in a row. If you realise you have more to say, then EDIT it.
Score
0
July 1, 2013 5:28:49 AM

1. Why no Octane in the JS benchmarks ?
2. Is HWA and webgl forced on in opera ? I remember that you agreed to force enable these features in Opera for sentiments sake.
3.Memory usage is going to be much better in FF23, specially for image heavy sites.

Google is adding too much stuff in Chrome, which has negatively affected its startup speed.
Score
0
July 1, 2013 6:04:43 AM

Why wouldn't you include IE11 in this?
Score
1
July 1, 2013 6:41:31 AM

In your java script benchmarks you make the statement: "At 66 seconds, Firefox places fourth...." however the chart is not in seconds....it is in milliseconds. If it were seconds, the difference between Chrome at 47 and IE at 71 would be significant. But since it's miliseconds, no one will notice. I'm sure the "66 Seconds" is a typo but it makes the benchmark seem to have a lot more significance than it really does.
Score
0
July 1, 2013 7:17:50 AM

No mention of IE10 constant crashing? I've grown up with IE and find it the easiest and most comfortable browser to use. But I simply can't put up with it anymore. It's like trying to listen to music when the track keeps skipping. Bloody annoying.
Score
0
July 1, 2013 9:19:49 AM

and palemoon is even better,64-bit, optimised, and just as fast as chrome.
Score
2
July 1, 2013 10:14:43 AM

One thing this article doesn't adequately point out is that Opera 15 has had practically all of its defining features stripped out in the move to Chromium. It's gone from being a highly-configurable Internet suite with all sorts of unique features and functionality built in, to being a bare web browsing frame with almost zero advanced features or options, much like Chrome. In fact, the entire browser looks and feels like little more than a re-skinned Chrome.

Opera 12 was certainly an abysmal release, pushed out the door half a year late, with poor performance and all of its new major additions either broken or disabled. Even that at least still felt like Opera though. Replacing the rendering engine was a reasonable course of action, but Opera decided it best to replace the entire interface as well, removing all of the browser's features in the process. They're also incredibly vague on whether any of those past features will ever return. A big reason why tens of millions of people continued to use desktop Opera even when it was falling behind in performance in recent years was its rich built-in feature-set and highly configurable interface, both of which are no longer present in Opera 15. Opera may have caught up to Chrome in terms of overall performance, but this new browser is Opera in name only, and unlikely to please most existing users.
Score
2
July 1, 2013 12:02:12 PM

What is obvious is internet exploder still sucks donkey butt.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 1:10:59 PM

Só id like too see these testes in multiple setups. For example I have a amd e-450 and chrome really struggles. Also noticed that since I sold my gpu and using the on board chip in my 2500k chrome really struggles with flash playback. With and without hardware acceleration.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 1:37:20 PM

ivyanev said:
While benchmarks are the way to compare browsers, they do not represent the feel you get


Too true. FF just always feels slow to me, and not just on the startup. Add to that the horrible memory management ( at least the version I was forced to use two years ago at work, ) and the stupid download manager, and I can't stand to use it. I use Chrome usually, but I have a lot of page failures with it, usually audio/video media getting screwed up.

Say what you will about IE being slow, but I have far fewer page errors and crashes on that than other browsers. If IE supported directional tab scrolling ( ctrl+ pg up/down opposed to ctrl+tab only, ) I don't think I'd use another browser.
Score
-1
July 1, 2013 3:03:18 PM

I'll be using Chrome forever, but these tests show Opera in a new light.
Score
2
July 1, 2013 3:26:31 PM

RedJaron said:
ivyanev said:
While benchmarks are the way to compare browsers, they do not represent the feel you get


Too true. FF just always feels slow to me, and not just on the startup. Add to that the horrible memory management ( at least the version I was forced to use two years ago at work, ) and the stupid download manager, and I can't stand to use it. I use Chrome usually, but I have a lot of page failures with it, usually audio/video media getting screwed up.

Say what you will about IE being slow, but I have far fewer page errors and crashes on that than other browsers. If IE supported directional tab scrolling ( ctrl+ pg up/down opposed to ctrl+tab only, ) I don't think I'd use another browser.

Firefox works perfectly for me. It is a big of a memory pig using about 1/2 GB right now but not so bad considering I have 65 tabs open.

It hasn't crashed in a long time and also the new releases fixed the serious memory leak.

But the download manager is a bit annoying but oh well.

IMO, Chrome sucks + I don't trust google products.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 5:41:52 PM

Great to see my favorite web browser is approved by TH.
Score
1
July 1, 2013 6:23:11 PM

A like!!! I saw a like!!!
Score
0
July 1, 2013 8:28:13 PM

Switched from Opera 12 to Chrome because after a while it started to become slow, then a month ago switched from Chrome to Firefox because the loading takes about 1 minute with all the extensions I had
Score
0
July 2, 2013 12:09:07 AM

antiglobal said:
Fix the damn "Display more comments" button, it doesn't bloody work!!!

+1 PLEASE
And I cannot upvote your comment because that is broken too.
Score
4
July 2, 2013 12:52:47 AM

The new Opera has removed the last useful full featured browser from the market. While Opera was a resource hog in many ways I could have used it as my daily portal, with email, notepad, rss all built in. It was also early to the html5 party.
IE was only used by me for computability purposes, it's started to get better though. I've heard all the wonders of Chrome and neither seen it nor felt it for myself. It fails to load some pages, crashes regularly and is generally a problem browser, but it does load fast so that mist be good.
Firefox started life as secure very light and fast browser. it should get back to ts roots. I use both FF and Opera and both are memory hogs. MS seems to be learning from the others and might be eying a monopoly status again because they are doing somethings right.
The review was a nice read but the reality is often so different from the lab. Benchmarks have proven to be unrealistic and benefits from local optimizations. I say kick out benchmarks and use real websites with real games and page images.
Score
2
July 2, 2013 1:01:14 AM

Yeah, Opermium (Opera/Chromium?) isn't Opera.
Score
0
July 2, 2013 3:01:04 AM

And I find it hilarious that you guys did this Grand Prix 2 days before Opera 15 final was released.
Score
1
!