Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Windows WBGP Winner's Circle

Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 25, Firefox 19, And IE10
By

Before we crown a champion, let's see where the contenders stand in pure performance. The chart below only factors in the performance-based testing (startup time, page load time, JavaScript/DOM, HTML5, and HWA).

Wow. When we look strictly at the performance-oriented metrics, we almost have different winners for each version of Windows. While Chrome clearly takes the lead on Windows 7, Firefox almost scores a victory in Windows 8. IonMonkey narrowed the performance gap, just not quite enough. IE10 takes a distant third place under either OS, with IE9 in tow. Opera pitifully places last in performance testing, achieving one-third of the Chrome and Firefox scores.

Now we'll add efficiency, reliability, security, and standards conformance to the mix and see how the standings change. 

While it was a close race, Chrome's showing in all four of the remaining non-performance metrics was superior to Firefox, closing the deal. Firefox does place a very close second, especially in Windows 8, where it has an apparent advantage. In fact, looking at the performance index reveals that Firefox receives an even larger boost from the new version of Windows than IE10.

Speaking of, Microsoft's newest browser doesn't exactly shake the earth on either version of the company's ubiquitous OS, earning a mediocre third place. Opera and IE9 share last place, halving Chrome's score. It's hard to believe that the Norwegian browser went toe-to-toe with Google just a few short years ago. With version 12 a continuing disappointment, perhaps it's best that Opera join the ranks of Chrome clones.

Google Chrome remains the reigning Web Browser Grand Prix Champion for Windows (and Linux). Congratulations on the ninth WBGP victory!

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 84 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    alidan , March 13, 2013 10:40 PM
    i wish we could get some older browsers in here to to see the difference newerones make.

    i personally am still on ff10, memory is really the reason i use fire fox, along with chrome. i would love to see how older versions stack up to newer ones.
Other Comments
  • 1 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , March 13, 2013 10:31 PM
    1. I am assuming that IE9 was included just to show improvements in IE10, and IE9 will be retired in the next WBGP

    2. " Opera jumps on-board the Chromium bandwagon" is false. Opera is using Webkit rendering engine for rendering. We dont know what the Javascript engine and JIT compiler is going to be.

    3. On page4, in "the average wait time" , you are taking the Geometric Mean. I think that using values less than 1 in a geometric mean is skewing the results. Can you take a Arithmetic Mean, and check please ?

    4. Memory usage reporting of IE9 and IE10 is completely bogus. For some workloads, in TaskManager, IE10 is seen using about 300MB memory, while it is actually using around 3GB RAM ! :o  . My 4GB RAM is completely used up, and disk-paging starts occuring.

    5. I am completely mystified why quite a few browsers do better in JS benchmarks on Windows8 . I can understand getting better scores in WebGL or HW acceleration tests (because of potential better Dx) , but JavaScript execution does not use Dx. Any ideas ?
  • 14 Hide
    alidan , March 13, 2013 10:40 PM
    i wish we could get some older browsers in here to to see the difference newerones make.

    i personally am still on ff10, memory is really the reason i use fire fox, along with chrome. i would love to see how older versions stack up to newer ones.
  • 5 Hide
    bison88 , March 13, 2013 11:43 PM
    Opera is definitely lagging, but a I love it to death. Hope the switch to the Webkit platform gives them the motivation to start leading some of the boards again as it's still a great browser. The memory problem can get absurd sometimes and builds up fast. I have to say IE 10 has shocked me just toying around with it on Windows 7. The thing is smooth and fast, something I haven't seen since the days when it dethroned Netscape.
  • 4 Hide
    adamovera , March 14, 2013 12:01 AM
    mayankleoboy11. I am assuming that IE9 was included just to show improvements in IE10, and IE9 will be retired in the next WBGP2. " Opera jumps on-board the Chromium bandwagon" is false. Opera is using Webkit rendering engine for rendering. We dont know what the Javascript engine and JIT compiler is going to be.3. On page4, in "the average wait time" , you are taking the Geometric Mean. I think that using values less than 1 in a geometric mean is skewing the results. Can you take a Arithmetic Mean, and check please ?4. Memory usage reporting of IE9 and IE10 is completely bogus. For some workloads, in TaskManager, IE10 is seen using about 300MB memory, while it is actually using around 3GB RAM ! . My 4GB RAM is completely used up, and disk-paging starts occuring.5. I am completely mystified why quite a few browsers do better in JS benchmarks on Windows8 . I can understand getting better scores in WebGL or HW acceleration tests (because of potential better Dx) , but JavaScript execution does not use Dx. Any ideas ?

    1. Yup
    2. The press release mentioned "Chromium", so I'm assuming WebKit/V8.
    3. Yes, you're right! The last timers went by milliseconds, so that wasn't an issue - the replacement charts should appear soon. Good catch!
    4. It seems pretty reasonable to me, basically mirrors Chrome in this regard.
    5. Nope
  • 4 Hide
    caspy7 , March 14, 2013 12:15 AM
    @mayankleoboy1
    #2, incorrect, they have said they're going with Chromium's V8.

    @alidan
    Mozilla saw the err of their ways and got after memory. The most recent version of Firefox should beat version 10 in both memory and performance. The last benchmarks I saw had it beating all the other browsers in memory usage as well. (In this article you can see a snapshot of this in the "40 tabs" graphic. Like many techies, this is more what my browsing looks like.)
  • -1 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , March 14, 2013 12:30 AM
    adamovera1. Yup2. The press release mentioned "Chromium", so I'm assuming WebKit/V8.3. Yes, you're right! The last timers went by milliseconds, so that wasn't an issue - the replacement charts should appear soon. Good catch!4. It seems pretty reasonable to me, basically mirrors Chrome in this regard.5. Nope


    #2 : I must have forgotten the release. Thanks for the correction.
    #4 : I am not saying that IE10 uses excessive memory. I am saying that the total memory used by all the ieexplorer processes in the task manager is incorrect. For some image heavy pages, total memory usage of IE as reported by task manager is about 300MB, but total system memory usage gets around 3GB!. So if you close IE10, system memory goes from 90% full to 50% full.
  • 1 Hide
    slomo4sho , March 14, 2013 12:32 AM
    I currently use Firefox, Chrome, and IE 10. They each have their own advantages. Thanks for the write up. When can be expect the Android browser round up?
  • 3 Hide
    xintox , March 14, 2013 12:51 AM
    Really? I thought you were better than that at Toms.
    The composite hardware acceleration scores is most likely the main reason why IE9/10 is so far behind Firefox and Chrome on performane. Yet, from what I can tell, this composite score is heavily influenced by the WebGL scores, which is exclusive to Chrome and Firefox.
    In that respect, MS has at some point stated that they do not even wish to support WebGL, as it represents a significant security risk, as it gives the browser close access to the computer hardware.
    Long story short, your methods of calculating performance scores heavily favors Chrome and Firefox as they are the only ones to implement support for WebGL.

    Additionally, I wish you would make it more clear how you arrive at your composite scores and of course the final Performance Index. How do you add numbers that are so varied in nature, without some method of normalizing the numbers?
  • 5 Hide
    srap , March 14, 2013 12:54 AM
    @adamovera
    I heard that Futuremark Peacekeeper is unreliable, it used to miscalculate it's own benchmarks and it's still a black box so it may still be buggy. Do you know anything specific about it?
  • 5 Hide
    abbadon_34 , March 14, 2013 1:10 AM
    Nice to see IE9 AND IE10, as well as Win 7 AND Win8. But I am curious how the final scores were calculated, seeing how WebGL was only supported on 2 browsers, as well as how the other incompatible tests were scored. A 0 vs not including can make a good deal of difference.
  • 2 Hide
    Anukul Bodile , March 14, 2013 2:22 AM
    i prefer opera over chrome because of its intuitive interface
  • 3 Hide
    Octiva , March 14, 2013 2:58 AM
    CHROME STEAL ALL YOUR PROCCESOR POWER, use it to send infomation MOUNTVIEW IP
  • 1 Hide
    Octiva , March 14, 2013 2:59 AM
    Make test on packet in IDLE MODE , 1 tab open (empty)
  • -7 Hide
    merikafyeah , March 14, 2013 3:02 AM
    You call it a Grand Prix, but you use stock browsers. Not very exciting. You don't watch Formula 1 for stock cars. Tom's needs an "Enthusiast Grand Prix" with experts tweaking and modding each browser to fully maximize its potential, then have it compete against other tricked out browsers, the way it should be. No enthusiast uses an out-of-box vanilla browser.
  • 2 Hide
    srap , March 14, 2013 3:55 AM
    merikafyeahYou call it a Grand Prix, but you use stock browsers. Not very exciting. You don't watch Formula 1 for stock cars. Tom's needs an "Enthusiast Grand Prix" with experts tweaking and modding each browser to fully maximize its potential, then have it compete against other tricked out browsers, the way it should be. No enthusiast uses an out-of-box vanilla browser.

    There is a reason why he uses the default install settings, and he explained this before in the former WBGP. The number of enthusiasts are far smaller than the 1-bit users, thus the default. Also, most enthusiasts actually know what is to be expected from the mods/tweaks, but normal users hardly know anything about browsers (if they even know the term: internet browser).
  • -6 Hide
    belardo , March 14, 2013 3:57 AM
    Wait a minute... firefox 19? It was little over a year ago that version 4.0 came out?! So its really version 4.18? right?
  • 1 Hide
    belardo , March 14, 2013 4:02 AM
    "Before Opera becomes yet another Webkit browser and we're down to the top three," What does that mean? That its taken off the list because it'll be a webkit? Chrome is already a webkit.
  • 1 Hide
    Onus , March 14, 2013 4:06 AM
    I use IE at work because I have to. I use FF (with ABP & NoScript) at home for everything except those few things (like some router config pages) that only work right in IE. I don't trust Chrome not to unnecessarily report my every move to Google, and what small speed "advantage" it may have is just not relevant, like someone bragging about getting 110 FPS in a game when I'm getting "only" 104.
  • 0 Hide
    srap , March 14, 2013 4:16 AM
    belardo"Before Opera becomes yet another Webkit browser and we're down to the top three," What does that mean? That its taken off the list because it'll be a webkit? Chrome is already a webkit.

    Because if it switches to webkit, all of it's test results will be identical to Chrome's, or it will hardly differ.

    caspy7The most recent version of Firefox should beat version 10 in both memory and performance.
    Firefox 15: HueyFix, details here.

    @alidan: FF17 ESR would be more safe than FF10, and even better with memory.

    Edit: I hate how it keeps deleting the links.
  • 1 Hide
    belardo , March 14, 2013 4:23 AM
    Oh... well, as long as Opera retains its UI/functions... it wouldn't bother me much. I use both Chrome and Opera. I prefer Opera, but use Chrome when a site doesnt like Opera.

    Same for my Android phone.
Display more comments