Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Page Load Time Performance Benchmarks

Web Browser Grand Prix 9: Chrome 17, Firefox 10, And Ubuntu
By

We use the same test pages as the eight-tab startup time tests, plus Tom's Hardware for the individual page load time tests. The test script is the same as the single-tab startup time, except we open each browser to a blank tab and navigate to the test pages after browser startup. The browser composite scores are achieved by averaging the load times for each of the nine test pages.

Cached Page Load Times

Cached page load time represents the amount of time you would wait for a browser to display a page that you've already visited (like a home page, a bookmark, a history entry, and so on).

When it comes to loading a site you've already seen in Windows, you just can't beat Apple's Safari, which earns an average cached page load time of 0.8 seconds. Close behind with a time of  just under 0.9 seconds is Google Chrome, which only needs 0.73 seconds in Ubuntu, beating all of the Windows 7-based browsers. Safari takes third place in Windows 7 at just under one second, and second place in Ubuntu 11.10. IE9 places fourth with a Windows 7 time just under one second. Firefox finishes last at more than one second, while its Linux version takes 1.3 seconds, placing last on that platform as well.

The charts below contain the detailed view of the individual test pages in the cached page load time test, for each operating system.

Cached - Windows 7Cached - Windows 7Cached - Ubuntu 11.10Cached - Ubuntu 11.10

Uncached Page Load Times

Uncahced page load time indicates the wait for a page you've never visited before, like a search result or an external link off of a favorite site.

Safari takes a first-place finish when asked to load new Web pages. IE9 comes in second, it's time achieving a big step up from where the browser finished in our cached page test. Chrome places third in Windows at 1.65 seconds, but takes first in Ubuntu with a time of 1.61 seconds. Opera places fourth in Windows and second in Ubuntu with scores of 1.67 and 1.75 s, respectively. Firefox again places last in both operating environments.

Below are charts containing the detailed view of uncached page load times for each OS.

Uncached - Windows 7Uncached - Windows 7Uncached - Ubuntu 11.10Uncached - Ubuntu 11.10

Realistically, the scores for both cached and uncached page loads see all of the contenders separated by tiny slivers of time. The only clear winners are Safari and Chrome for Ubuntu. The only stand-out loser is Firefox under Ubuntu.

Display all 87 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 3:45 AM
    IMO, Firefox is concentrating more on HTML5, ignoring CSS and JavaScript.
    It does well in HTML5 benches but 99% of the websites use primarily CSS and JS and HTML3, in which Firefox does poorly.

  • 11 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 3:42 AM
    just wondering if use of a DX11 capable GPU will change scores in some HTML5 and other benchmarks as the browsers use DX11 assisted rendering.

    Also, AMD driver support in linux is poor compared to Nvidia.
    For future Linux articles, can you use a Dx11 based Nvidia GPU?
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 3:42 AM
    just wondering if use of a DX11 capable GPU will change scores in some HTML5 and other benchmarks as the browsers use DX11 assisted rendering.

    Also, AMD driver support in linux is poor compared to Nvidia.
    For future Linux articles, can you use a Dx11 based Nvidia GPU?
  • 11 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 3:45 AM
    IMO, Firefox is concentrating more on HTML5, ignoring CSS and JavaScript.
    It does well in HTML5 benches but 99% of the websites use primarily CSS and JS and HTML3, in which Firefox does poorly.

  • 8 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 3:46 AM
    Waiting for OPERA12. It keeps impressing me.
    Even without hardware acceleration, it keeps up with the competition,

    When that beast launches, it will kill FF/IE and most probably chrome too.
  • 3 Hide
    PreferLinux , February 21, 2012 4:45 AM
    Who wants to guess that the poor Linux Flash and WebGL results were because Flash and WebGL don't use hardware acceleration with that graphics card and driver? I would be thinking so.
  • -2 Hide
    mitch074 , February 21, 2012 5:10 AM
    Firefox performance took a dive starting with version 4, where all hardware acceleration was disabled: before then, in version 3.6, XRENDER was used when available (it was 4/5th as fast as IE9 on the same PC) while it is now really slow - it's all software.

    Moreover, the only driver enabled for hardware acceleration on Linux is the Nvidia driver: according to Mozilla (and verified by yours truly on AMD and Intel hardware), most display drivers in Linux suck when it comes to 2D rendering - ouch. Note that Mozilla and Google could add shims to circumvent those bugs, but they don't -not worth the effort, especially when driver makers could fix their bugs rather easily, leaving the browsers broken yet again.
  • 6 Hide
    indian-art , February 21, 2012 5:23 AM
    I use Chrome (19.0.1041.0 dev presently) the most on Linux (Ubuntu) and empirically I felt Chrome works very well. Now your tests confirm it.

    I find Opera 12 really nice too. It can run with Opera 11.61. Opera 12 has a silver icon & 11.61 has its classic red. I like Firefox & Epiphany too.

    Its a shame Safari and IE are not truly cross-platform.
  • 5 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 5:36 AM
    how many of those top 40 sites use HTML5?

    i think that the HTML5 scores should be weighed by a factor of the percent of top40 sites that use HTML5.
    This way actual importance of HTML5 can be judged in real world.
  • -5 Hide
    nd22 , February 21, 2012 5:38 AM
    It's a shame Apple does not pay enough attention to the Windows market and optimize their browser! On Mac Safari is king of the hill - personal opinion of course!
    On Windows I feel that IE9 works really well for me, although Chrome is the speed demon! FF 4+ lost their appeal for me.
  • 6 Hide
    forestie , February 21, 2012 6:55 AM
    The OSes that are used are 64 bits but the browsers are mostly (all?) 32bits on Windows, and probably 64bits on Linux.

    Internet Explorer has 64bits builds on Win7, and Firefox has "almost" a 64bits browser on Windows too: Waterfox, which is a semi-official Firefox for 64bits Windows. Waterfox in particular claims huge improvements over base 32bits install, I would like to see how that translates into real-world.

    Not sure about availability of 64bits editions of other browsers on Windows.

    Here are my wishes:
    -clearly mention if the 32bits or 64bits version of the browser is used
    -where applicable and relevant, test with both 32bits and 64bits variants. I would like to see IE and FF split into 32 and 64 variants on Win for example.

    I personally migrated from FF to WF on my machines 3 weeks ago and find it noticeably faster in everyday use. WF is now my main browser.
  • 1 Hide
    doive1231 , February 21, 2012 7:27 AM
    As long as phones keep using Android, Chrome will be the most popular browser for a long while. Google have got it all sorted.
  • 6 Hide
    mll0576 , February 21, 2012 7:36 AM
    One test that is missing in almost all browser test is memory leak over time

    I find almost all browsers require more and more memory the longer they run

    Example: Chrome 17: 8 new tabs =1500MB
  • 5 Hide
    Marcus52 , February 21, 2012 8:06 AM
    Quote:
    If you caught our recent review and cross-platform benchmarks of Ubuntu 11.10, you saw that Ubuntu won most of the tests, especially in segments where it simply cannot compete, like gaming.


    This sentence makes no sense to me. how can it "win" where it "simply cannot compete"?

    ;) 
  • 1 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 8:35 AM
    Quote:
    The OSes that are used are 64 bits but the browsers are mostly (all?) 32bits on Windows, and probably 64bits on Linux.

    Internet Explorer has 64bits builds on Win7, and Firefox has "almost" a 64bits browser on Windows too: Waterfox, which is a semi-official Firefox for 64bits Windows. Waterfox in particular claims huge improvements over base 32bits install, I would like to see how that translates into real-world.

    Not sure about availability of 64bits editions of other browsers on Windows.

    Here are my wishes:
    -clearly mention if the 32bits or 64bits version of the browser is used
    -where applicable and relevant, test with both 32bits and 64bits variants. I would like to see IE and FF split into 32 and 64 variants on Win for example.

    I personally migrated from FF to WF on my machines 3 weeks ago and find it noticeably faster in everyday use. WF is now my main browser.



    IE9 64 bit performs very bad in comparison to the 32 bit builds.

    For firefox/waterfox, on Windows, using 64 bit builds has the following

    1. Native performance increase due to 64 bit.
    2. Performance degradation due to the fact that the MSVC does not have the same memory optimizations for 64 bit as for 32 bit.
    so overall the experience of 64 bit FF/WF is the same as 32 bit builds.
    For 64 bit Ubuntu, you get the 64 bit FF by default..

    For a really great optimised FF, use PALEMOON.

    @AdamOvera : 32/64 bit should be clearly mentioned in the article.
  • 1 Hide
    Chetou , February 21, 2012 8:54 AM
    mll0576One test that is missing in almost all browser test is memory leak over time I find almost all browsers require more and more memory the longer they runExample: Chrome 17: 8 new tabs =1500MB


    Memory benchmarks are almost useless in WBGP. Browsers leak, and Firefox leaks ALOT. But that is not the only problem. Opera works ok even when it fills up RAM, but Firefox becomes close to useless when it gets RAM deprived.
  • 3 Hide
    ivyanev , February 21, 2012 9:16 AM
    Quote:
    but Firefox becomes close to useless when it gets RAM deprived.

    Nothing works well when ram is full.
    And bashing Opera for doing things different is a shame:o pera don't release RAM but opening closed tab is almost instant ,so they sacrifice RAM for speed.
  • 5 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 21, 2012 9:25 AM
    in FF, when it begans to use 1GB+ memory, it becomes sluggish.
    So it is eating RAM AND becoming slow. I dont mind it eating RAM but it has to be responsive then.
  • 2 Hide
    cirslevin , February 21, 2012 10:36 AM
    mayankleoboy1IMO, Firefox is concentrating more on HTML5, ignoring CSS and JavaScript.It does well in HTML5 benches but 99% of the websites use primarily CSS and JS and HTML3, in which Firefox does poorly.

    indeed in your opinion.

    Maze solver is only one test among hundreds of things CSS does. If you want to argue about what 99% of websites use. then remember 99.9999999999% of websites don't use maze solver. For 99% of the websites, I would argue firefox does excellent job on CSS.

    Firefox has focused on js speed for years with dedicated team, and with current benchmark (overall 2nd), you still claim it perform "poorly"? Its hard to argue you don't have prejudice here.

    99 % of websites use HTML3? please, you argument is like mixture of 1980s and 2020s, whatever way you can put down firefox.

    If you dislike firefox, state it, no need to hide behind the fake data.
  • -1 Hide
    Chetou , February 21, 2012 11:02 AM
    mayankleoboy1in FF, when it begans to use 1GB+ memory, it becomes sluggish.So it is eating RAM AND becoming slow. I dont mind it eating RAM but it has to be responsive then.


    Yes, exactly! It's as if something brakes in Firefox when it gets over 1 GB and Opera is mostly unaffected. I have seen many reports of this, and across all FF versions. That was the main reason I was using Opera for a long time, but I can't stand some of the things they've been doing since late 10 versions. So I'm stuck with terrible Firefox performance, but at least it's customizable. It is its only saving grace.
  • -2 Hide
    Chetou , February 21, 2012 11:14 AM
    These kind of tests and comparisons are mostly useless. Only using the browser over a couple of days with 100+ tabs is what really shows its strengths and weaknesses, usability, performance, reliability...
  • 5 Hide
    mayne92 , February 21, 2012 11:46 AM
    Great review Adam!
Display more comments