Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Performance Benchmarks: Page Load Times

Web Browser Grand Prix 5: Opera 11.50, Firefox 5, And Chrome 12
By

Google

WebKit-based browsers Chrome and Safari are the fastest at loading Google.com; each takes 20 and 22 milliseconds, respectively. Firefox 5 comes in third at just under 30 milliseconds. Close behind in fourth place is Opera, with a time of just 30 milliseconds, while IE9 places fifth at just over 42 milliseconds.

Facebook

IE9 takes first place, loading the world's second-most popular Web site in just 44 milliseconds. The WebKit-based browsers again place closely, with Chrome taking 77.6 milliseconds and Safari taking 78.6. Opera is again a very near fourth place, taking just 91.4 milliseconds to load Facebook. The new Firefox trails far behind the pack at 132.8 milliseconds.

YouTube

Chrome again takes the lead when it comes to loading another Google property; it renders YouTube in just under 200 milliseconds. Rivals IE9 and Firefox 5 come in a close second and third place (respectively), both taking around 280 milliseconds to load YouTube. Opera places a distant fourth at just over 600 milliseconds, while Safari comes in fifth at around 650.

Yahoo!

IE9 is the first to load the Yahoo! home page, managing to finish the render in around 280 milliseconds. Chrome finishes second at just over 370 milliseconds. Safari is a distant third, taking almost 700 milliseconds. Opera places fourth with a time of just over 800 milliseconds, and Firefox 5 is last, eating up a full second.

MSN

Chrome finishes first, taking only 544.2 milliseconds. Firefox comes in second place with a score of 730 milliseconds. Safari is the third-place finisher with a time of 880 milliseconds. Opera trails behind the pack at 1.25 seconds, while surprisingly, IE9 takes a full 2.5 seconds to load its own default home page.

Display all 102 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 28 Hide
    cadder , July 7, 2011 5:05 AM
    Will you guys please investigate the SECURITY of each browser? I would use the one that is most secure even if it is slowest.
  • 18 Hide
    adampower , July 7, 2011 4:17 AM
    Wow, it seems like I upgrade my browsers every week.
  • 18 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , July 7, 2011 4:54 AM
    Now if just Google would release a 64-bit Chrome browser.
Other Comments
  • 18 Hide
    adampower , July 7, 2011 4:17 AM
    Wow, it seems like I upgrade my browsers every week.
  • -9 Hide
    Anonymous , July 7, 2011 4:23 AM
    somehow it seems that firefox is focussing more on benchmarks rather than actual real world usage.
  • 9 Hide
    Anonymous , July 7, 2011 4:34 AM
    opera keeps impressing me throughout the WBGP
  • 18 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , July 7, 2011 4:54 AM
    Now if just Google would release a 64-bit Chrome browser.
  • 9 Hide
    Tamz_msc , July 7, 2011 4:58 AM
    First of all, this is the most thorough WBGP yet.
    Quote:
    somehow it seems that firefox is focussing more on benchmarks rather than actual real world usage.

    I don't think so - proper page loads and battery life are important considerations.

    I agree that Mozilla did not do a right thing in copying Chrome's release cycle, but at least they're trying - for example, they're trying hard in bringing down memory usage by increasing the garbage collection frequency(check this out in the Aurora and Nightly builds).

    WBGP is basically a test of speed, and Chrome may have won in that, but Firefox is not far behind. I can wait for two or three seconds for my page to load. You can easily bring down the page load times by using addons like AdBlock Plus.

    Even with the faster release cycle, this article clearly states that Firefox is still the most stable browser. Many people say that they've had numerous crashes, but its something wrong with their drivers or OS - I have not had a single crash since FF 4.0 beta 5 (or 7?), when they introduced hardware acceleration for the first time.

    Firefox remains the most customizable browser, while Opera has the most number of features out-of-the-box.

    So overall, according to me Firefox>=Opera>Chrome>IE 9> Safari.
  • 28 Hide
    cadder , July 7, 2011 5:05 AM
    Will you guys please investigate the SECURITY of each browser? I would use the one that is most secure even if it is slowest.
  • 4 Hide
    Tamz_msc , July 7, 2011 5:10 AM
    Quote:
    Will you guys please investigate the SECURITY of each browser? I would use the one that is most secure even if it is slowest.

    That's easy: FF+AdBlock Plus+ NoScript+Ghostery+BrowserProtect
  • -8 Hide
    ChiefTexas_82 , July 7, 2011 5:43 AM
    IE 9 is a speed demon? I droped IE because it started running like ****. I blame loading too many side programs after years on the web. So I wanted to try Chrome or Firefox. Being a Google fan already, I tried Chrome. So far it leaves my old IE8 in the dust. Except for a certain bug, I would say it has been an improvement in almost every way.
  • 2 Hide
    ChiefTexas_82 , July 7, 2011 5:45 AM
    I don't like how Nvidia's GPU auto-detect doesn't work on chrome.
  • -4 Hide
    thartist , July 7, 2011 5:47 AM
    Damn, Opera has it's flaws but it's nonetheless the one that does one thing best: browsing.
  • 9 Hide
    wheredahoodat , July 7, 2011 5:56 AM
    I have personally along others have remained loyal to Firefox for years, but the latest moves have been are puzzling. Despite the benchmarks, they have not addressed bad cold start up problems (test on netbooks not on desktop rigs to find out), and the Firefox 4/5 new javascript engine has been a nightmare memory wise causing many to banish Firefox or remain with version 3.6 on older computers.

    Also instead of prioritizing the electrolysis project which would have made Firefox as snappy as Chrome, they are wasting their time on the Azure graphics project to replace a only few months old Cairo engine for marginal benefit because html 5 is still just the future, with no real significant penetration for the web.

    Mozilla can only push their base so far with their incompetence. Back then there was no real competition or alternative for a big market share, standard compliance browser. However there is now a real alternative with Chrome, and Firefox's gradual but definite market share hemorrhaging has shown that incompetence has consequences.

  • 12 Hide
    beavermml , July 7, 2011 6:00 AM
    which one is the best in term of security out of box?
  • 2 Hide
    akorzan , July 7, 2011 6:05 AM
    On the last page in the table and row "proper page loads," why is Opera in twice and no Safari?
    Surely, this is a typo.
  • 1 Hide
    Maziar , July 7, 2011 6:19 AM
    Thanks for the review,I was waiting for this !
  • 12 Hide
    andy5174 , July 7, 2011 7:28 AM
    No doubt that Chrome is notably faster than Firefox so that I can feel the difference easily. However, Chrome lacks many useful features/add-ons offered by Firefox that I've been using for years. This is the main and only reason that Firefox is still my default browser.
  • 1 Hide
    obarthelemy , July 7, 2011 7:48 AM
    I'm still uncomfortable with those kind of tests. Especially because they don't take into account out-of-the-box features and creature comforts. I have all 4 installed (no Safari), and I find use Opera most, because it does very good Mouse Gestures, tab management, and synch. Without any addons ! I find Addons a very mixed blessing: I had plenty of headaches with FFox's, what with compatibility issues when upgrading FFox, bug and slow/ban/non-existent support... I find that having all required functionnality included in the base browser is a big plus, more-so for non-techies.
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , July 7, 2011 8:12 AM
    How can you place Firefox in Memory Usage as strong. This thing is leaking all over the place. Should you review your methodology?
    PS I m an early adopter of FF since 2.0 but I consider switching due to this memory issue.
  • 14 Hide
    johnsmithhatesVLC , July 7, 2011 8:13 AM
    Firefox is the only browser that can block all ads properly. It's also the most reliable at page loading as the WGP has proven. I really don't care about millisecond differences in page loads. Firefox is the best to me.
  • 4 Hide
    lucas1024 , July 7, 2011 8:45 AM
    Thanks for including the reliability test! I had almost convinced myself to switch to Chrome from FF5, because of the memory usage, but not anymore - I do like my pages to load every time and I routinely have 30-40 tabs open.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , July 7, 2011 8:49 AM
    page 3 :
    64-bit Desktop Test System
    Operating System
    Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (32-bit)
Display more comments