Facebook JSGameBench v0.4.1
JSGameBench measures both native HTML5 hardware acceleration as well as WebGL.

Safari takes the lead in overall hardware acceleration with Firefox being the only other reasonable option on OS X. Chrome places a very distant third, followed by an equally meager score for fourth-place finisher Opera.
On Windows 7, Chrome takes the lead, doubling Safari's winning OS X score. Firefox is again the second-best choice in overall hardware acceleration, followed by Internet Explorer in third, and Opera again in last place.
HTML5 Hardware Acceleration
Composite Scoring
The HTML5 Hardware Acceleration composite is the geometric mean of the average WebVizBench and Psychedelic Browsing scores.

Safari is the big winner on Mountain Lion, followed by Chrome in second place. While Firefox technically places third, it and Opera are equally poor for HTML5 hardware acceleration on OS X.
On Windows 7, Firefox regains its lead over arch-rival Internet Explorer. Chrome manages a respectable third-place finish, followed far behind by Opera in last place.
Drill Down
The charts below are for Psychedelic Browsing and WebVizBench.
Psychedelic Browsing
WebVizBench
Psychedelic Browsing obliterates Opera on both OSes and handicaps Firefox for OS X versus WebVizBench, Chrome 21 comes out of nowhere to claim victory in WebVizBench on both operating systems. A slight lead by Firefox 15 over IE9 in WebVizBench is what allows Mozilla to regain the HTML5 hardware acceleration crown on Windows 7.
WebGL
Chrome and Firefox remain the only stable browsers with default WebGL implementations on either operating system.
Composite Scoring
The WebGL composite is the geometric mean of the average results from Mozilla's WebGL FishIE Tank and WebGL Solar System from Chrome Experiments.

Firefox beats Chrome on OS X Mountain Lion by just seven frames per second, 24 to 17. Firefox 15 takes the lead on Windows 7 with 48 FPS, followed by Chrome 21 with 31 FPS.
Drill Down
The charts below contain the average results for WebGL FishIE Tank and WebGL Solar System.
Both Google and Mozilla do quite well in the WebGL FishIE Tank benchmark, but Chrome has a clear disadvantage in the WebGL Solar System test.
- The Top Four Browsers, Tested And Ranked
- Chrome, Firefox, IE9, Opera, Safari
- Test System Specs And Software Setup
- Test Suite And Methodology
- Start Time
- Page Load Time
- JavaScript Performance
- DOM And CSS Performance
- HTML5 Performance
- Hardware Acceleration Performance
- Plug-In Performance: Flash, Java, Silverlight
- Memory Efficiency
- Reliability, Responsiveness, And Security
- Standards Conformance
- Test Analysis
- OS X And Windows 7 Winners' Circle


When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
Nearly every performance benchmark there is points in that direction. This probably has a lot to do with how much time developers spend optimizing for Windows - after all, Windows holds 90+% of the desktop user base. However, it is interesting that the rift between Windows and OS X is far greater than between Windows and Linux for the core stuff like JS, CSS, DOM, page loads, etc. Plug-ins are another story, they're always much better on Windows than the other two platforms.
(The nice popular ones like ABP, Lazarus, Greasemonkey all have equivalents; some lesser-used plugins like Rikaichan also have ports by now. Only a matter of time!)
as always, a great read.
All versions of Chrome hold up incredibly well cross-platform, if you look back at the two Linux WBGPs, it won there, too. Thanks for reading!
Absolutely, a Windows 8-based WBGP is already in the cards for October.
When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
Testing these browsers at stock doesn't reveal even an eighth of the picture.
btw great work adamovera keep it up man
Interesting idea, so basically a tweaked-out edition of the WBGP, where we use all the tools available to each browser for performance gains... That could work, but I gotta warn you that the next three WBGPs are already decided, so it would probably be real late in the year, or even next year before I could get to it.
Nearly every performance benchmark there is points in that direction. This probably has a lot to do with how much time developers spend optimizing for Windows - after all, Windows holds 90+% of the desktop user base. However, it is interesting that the rift between Windows and OS X is far greater than between Windows and Linux for the core stuff like JS, CSS, DOM, page loads, etc. Plug-ins are another story, they're always much better on Windows than the other two platforms.
The big problem with including the dev channel browsers is the amount of time it takes to produce the article (testing/charts/writing/editing/translating), combined with the tendency of the dev channel to constantly update. Before testing is even completed it's certain that something will update. TBH, the stable channels of Chrome and Firefox are a handful as it is. For example, for this article I had to test 8 browsers (4 on each OS), but I ended up testing 18+ due to OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Flash, and Java updates. Sorry, but I'm just not sure it's even doable in this format. Thanks for reading!
well I wanted to include it in my comment myself but I forgot I wanted to say if the timing allows
My computer is fast enough that it does not really mater what browser I choose.
In my case, ease of use means that I can see what is going on.
I decry the trend towards dumbing down the UI on every program I use.
(I also refuse to call software 'Apps', to me an app is a mini-program on a phone.)
I always turn on all menus, buttons and labels in WaterFox.
BTW: Good point.
Why don't you include WaterFox in your testing?
It is the 64 bit version of FireFox and I am sure that in your speed tests it may do a little better.