Reliability
During our three-phase memory testing, we have the opportunity to see not only how much memory a browser uses, but also how it behaves under heavy load. After launching the additional 39 pages, we have to check each tab to ensure that all 40 of them are fully and properly rendered. After all, blank pages lower a browser's memory usage total. So, we record each time that we have to reload a tab due to broken formatting or missing elements. Thus, the browser with the lowest number of reloads displays the highest number of pages properly.
While the 40 test pages are recorded cached and hot, naturally, we first had to load them uncached and cold. During this setup process, IE10 crashes and must re-open and reload all 40 tabs.

Although this isn't something we tested for specifically, we must make note of this behavior. No other browser since Safari 4.x (Windows version) has crashed under these conditions.

Somewhat surprisingly, Firefox 22 takes the lead over Opera 12 in this metric with just a single necessary reload. Again, that's a marked improvement over previous rapid-release versions. Opera 12 requires an average of four reloads to earn a relatively distant second place. IE10 places third, with twice the number of reloads, followed by Opera Next with nine. Chrome takes last place with more than a quarter of the test pages requiring a refresh.
This is one metric where Opera Next loses to the current version. Although it's just as fast as Opera 12, Opera Next is half as reliable. This is an attribute Opera's fans typically value, so it'll need to be addressed.
Security
BrowserScope's Security test remains our sole benchmark in this area. This test is more of a checklist, like the standards conformance tests, than an actual performance benchmark.

Chrome still holds the top spot in this test with 16 out of 17 tests passed. Opera Next takes second place, passing 15 of the security checkpoints. IE10 is in third place with a score of 14, followed by Firefox in fourth place with 13 tests passed. Opera 12 again comes up short, passing just 10 of the 17 security checks.
At least right now, Opera Next represents a more secure option than the browser's current version. However, there is always security in obscurity, and Chromium surely presents a much more attractive target for exploits than Opera 12, which no one even attempted to hack at this year's two major hacking competitions. So, only time can tell whether the move to Chromium is actually an upgrade in this respect.
- Opera: Has The Fat Lady Sung?
- Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera
- Test Setup And Benchmark Suite
- Wait Times: Start-Up
- Wait Times: Page Load
- JavaScript And DOM Performance
- HTML5 And CSS3 Performance
- Hardware Acceleration Performance
- Memory Efficiency
- Reliability And Security
- Standards Conformance
- The WBGP XVI Winner's Circle
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.
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.
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.
I'll miss a hell of a lot of stuff when I move off Presto-based Opera.
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?
I'm guessing it should have said i5-3570K.
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.
When the Chromium-based version becomes stable, it will be called Opera.
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.
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.