In our last installment, Web Browser Grand Prix 7: Firefox 7, Chrome 14, Opera 11.51, we completely dropped the raw placing tables in favor of the analysis tables that more closely reflect the scale of victory. Let's quickly take a moment to go over what these mean.
The analysis tables hold categories for each type of benchmark. For example, Mozilla Dromaeo DOM is represented by the DOM category, while Peacekeeper, the Krakens, and SunSpiders are represented together under the JavaScript category.
Each category has four columns: winner, strong, acceptable, and weak. Winner is obviously the browser that achieves the highest scores for the category. The strong column is for those browsers exhibiting superior performance, but no victory. Acceptable is for browsers that perform neither spectacularly nor poorly, but merely adequately. For tests that measure frame rates, a score near the 30 FPS range gets that browser filed into the acceptable column. The weak column is for browsers that perform poorly or substantially lower than their competitors.
In the event of a complete tie in the analysis tables, we simply go back to the individual benchmarks and look at the raw difference in scores.
The Windows 7-based standings for Chrome 16, Firefox 9, Internet Explorer 9, Opera 11.60, and Safari 5.1.2 are found in the table below.
Windows 7 Analysis Table
| Winner | Strong | Acceptable | Weak | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance Benchmarks | ||||
| Startup Time, Light | Safari | Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera | ||
| Startup Time, Heavy | Internet Explorer | Chrome, Opera | Firefox | Safari |
| Page Load Time, Uncached | Chrome | Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari | ||
| Page Load Time, Cached | Chrome | Safari | Firefox, Opera | Internet Explorer |
| JavaScript | Chrome | Firefox | Opera | Internet Explorer, Safari |
| DOM | Opera | Chrome, Firefox | Safari | Internet Explorer |
| CSS | Safari | Chrome | Internet Explorer, Opera | Firefox |
| Flash | Safari | Internet Explorer, Opera | Chrome, Firefox | |
| Java | Firefox | Chrome | Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari | |
| Silverlight | Opera | Firefox, Internet Explorer | Chrome, Safari | |
| HTML5 | Internet Explorer | Firefox | Chrome, Safari | Opera |
| HTML5 Hardware Acceleration | Internet Explorer | Firefox | Chrome, Opera, Safari | |
| WebGL | Firefox | Chrome | Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari | |
| Efficiency Benchmarks | ||||
| Memory Usage, Light | Internet Explorer | Safari, Opera | Chrome, Firefox | |
| Memory Usage, Heavy | Safari | Chrome, Firefox, Opera | Internet Explorer | |
| Memory Management | Chrome | Internet Explorer | Firefox | Opera, Safari |
| Reliability Benchmarks | ||||
| Proper Page Loads | Firefox, Opera | Safari | Chrome | Internet Explorer |
| Conformance Benchmarks | ||||
| HTML5 | Chrome | Firefox, Opera | Internet Explorer, Safari | |
| JavaScript | Opera | Firefox | Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari | |
Now let's see how Chrome 16, Firefox 9, Opera 11.60, and Safari 5.1.2 fare on the MacBook Air's native platform of Mac OS X.
Mac OS X (Lion) Analysis Table
| Winner | Strong | Acceptable | Weak | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance Benchmarks | ||||
| Startup Time, Light | Safari | Firefox | Chrome | Opera |
| Startup Time, Heavy | Firefox | Opera | Chrome, Safari | |
| Page Load Time, Uncached | Chrome | Firefox | Safari | Opera |
| Page Load Time, Cached | Safari | Chrome | Firefox, Opera | |
| JavaScript | Chrome | Firefox | Safari | Opera |
| DOM | Firefox | Chrome, Safari | Opera | |
| CSS | Safari | Chrome | Opera | Firefox |
| Flash | Firefox | Chrome, Opera, Safari | ||
| Java | Opera | Safari | Chrome, Firefox | |
| Silverlight | Safari | Chrome, Firefox, Opera | ||
| HTML5 | Safari | Chrome, Opera | Firefox | |
| HTML5 Hardware Acceleration | Safari | Chrome, Firefox, Opera | ||
| WebGL | Chrome, Firefox | Opera, Safari | ||
| Efficiency Benchmarks | ||||
| Memory Usage, Light | Safari | Opera | Firefox, Chrome | |
| Memory Usage, Heavy | Opera | Safari | Firefox | Chrome |
| Memory Management | Chrome | Firefox, Opera, Safari | ||
| Reliability Benchmarks | ||||
| Proper Page Loads | Opera | Firefox | Chrome, Safari | |
| Conformance Benchmarks | ||||
| HTML5 | Chrome | Firefox, Opera | Safari | |
| JavaScript | Opera | Firefox | Chrome, Safari | |
Without further ado, let's crown our Web Browser Grand Prix VIII champions.
- Web Browser Grand Prix VIII
- Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, And Safari
- WBGP VIII Test Setup
- Startup Time Performance Benchmarks
- Page Load Time Performance Benchmarks
- JavaScript Performance Benchmarks
- DOM And CSS Performance Benchmarks
- Flash Performance Benchmarks
- Java And Silverlight Performance Benchmarks
- HTML5 Performance Benchmarks
- Harware Acceleration Performance Benchmarks
- WebGL Performance Benchmarks
- Memory Usage Efficiency Benchmarks
- Memory Management Efficiency Benchmarks
- Page Load Reliability Benchmarks
- Standards Conformance Benchmarks
- Benchmark Analysis
- Crowning Two Champions In Windows 7 And OS X
I think add ons are much easier to find with FF, and there seems to be a wider variety. Then again I do realize this article wasn't about browsers with add ons.
Yes, we're using everything stock. There is no one-size-fits-all combination of plug-ins to standardize on, and every browser might not have the exact same plugins available. So that throws out a fair comparison between browsers - wouldn't work for the WBGP. Perhaps an article concentrating specifically on Firefox (or another Web browser) with and without various plug-ins would clear that up?
Why do people seem to forget Chrome has this built in. All you have to do is go into the options menu and disable JavaScript.
i know i know, chrome is faster, has market share, ie 9/10 are coming up, blah blah. but ff can still fight. google's benevolent (read: to antitrust-pacifier) fund injection should help ff. besides, chrome is a sneakware bundled with numerous softwares. ff has scriptblockers that block statcounter.
Thanks for the feedback, and good catch. I must have goofed and started making the graphics with an older file when I already had the newer one. Doh! It's all fixed now, and it should update momentarily.
Firefox can do the same with tab mix plus. I couldn't live without scrolling though my tabs.
Just like VHS vs Beta, NTSC vs PAL or Gasoline vs Electric... just because the public likes something does not mean it is the best solution.