Hardware Setup
| Test System Specs | |
|---|---|
| Operating System 1 | Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) |
| Operating System 2 | Apple OS X Mountain Lion 10.8.1 (64-bit) |
| Processor | Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz (quad-core) |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3 (F10 BIOS) |
| Memory | 8 GB Crucial DDR3 @ 1333 MT/s (2 x 4 GB) |
| Graphics | Asus GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1 GB GDDR5 (PCIe 2.0 x16) |
| Storage | Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500 GB SATA 3Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache |
| Optical | Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS |
| Power Supply | Corsair TX750W (750 W max) |
| Case | Zalman MS-1000 HS2 |
| CPU Cooler | Scythe Mugen 2 Revision B |
| Keyboard | Logitech Wireless Keyboard K320 |
| Mouse | Logitech Wireless Trackball M570 |
Windows 7 Test Installation
OS X 10.8 Test Installation
The following table contains the system specs of the local Web server used for our Start and Page Load tests, as well as JSGameBench.
| Local Web Server Specs | |
|---|---|
| Operating System | Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server Edition "Precise Pangolin" (32-bit) |
| Processor | Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.41 GHz |
| Motherboard | Biostar P4M80-M4 |
| Memory | 768 MB DDR @ 333 MHz |
| Graphics | Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 128 MB DDR (AGP) |
| Storage | Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJD, 160 GB EIDE, 7200 RPM |
| Optical 1 | Hitachi-LG DVD GDR-8163B |
| Optical 2 | Hitachi-LG CD-RW GCE-8483B |
| Extra Packages | Apache2, MySQL Client, MySQL Server, PHP5, PHP-GD, PHP5-MySQL, PHPMyAdmin, SSH, Node.js, NPM |
The table below holds additional information on the test network.
| Network Specs | |
|---|---|
| ISP Service | Cox Preferred (18 Mb/s down, 2 Mb/s up) |
| Modem | Motorola SURFboard SBS101U |
| Router | Linksys WRT54G2 V1 |
Motorola SURFboard
Linksys WRT54G2
Software Setup
Both test installations were freshly installed and fully updated as of midnight on August 25th, 2012. Power management and automatic updates were disabled before testing.
All the software we installed, including the exact version number of the browsers tested, is listed in the table below.
| Software | Version |
|---|---|
| Chrome | 21.0.1180.83 |
| Firefox | 15.0 |
| Internet Explorer | 9.0.8112.16421 |
| Opera | 12.02 (build 1578) |
| Safari | 6.0 (8536.25) |
| Adobe Flash | 11.4.402.265 |
| Microsoft Silverlight | 5.1.10411.0 |
| Nvidia Driver (Windows-only) | 301.42 |
| Oracle Java (Windows-only) | 7.0.70 |
| Java for OS X (OS X-only) | 2012-004 |
Previous
Next
Summary
- 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
Ask a Category Expert
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.