| HTML5 Hardware Acceleration |
Psychedelic Browsing

The scores and placing of this benchmark are similar to results generated for WBGP5: Firefox, IE9, Chrome, Opera, and Safari. The difference is that Chrome 13 earns a little over 1.5 points more than version 12. On Mac OS X, Safari's weak score of eight points rockets up to more than 1800, allowing Apple's browser to come in less than two points behind Microsoft's Internet Explorer in Windows.
Hardware Acceleration Stress Test

Only browsers supporting HTML5 hardware acceleration achieve good scores in this benchmark. In fact, they max it out. First place on Windows is a tie between Firefox 6 and Internet Explorer 9. Second place goes to Chrome, followed closely by Opera, with the Windows version of Safari 5.1 falling behind in last place.
In OS X Lion, Safari 5.1 maxes out the benchmark at 60+ FPS, creating a cross-platform tie for first with the Windows versions of Firefox 6 and IE9. Opera lands in second place on OS X, with Chrome and Firefox in the distance.
For those wanting to utilize HTML5 hardware acceleration today, Firefox 4+ and IE9 are still the only options for Windows users, while Safari is the one and only hope on a Mac.
| WebGL |
We've completely changed the lineup of WebGL benchmarks. We replaced the Kronos Particles test with a variation from ThoughtsInComputation. Its version has more going on, which lowers the frame rate so the test cannot be maxed out. It also has the option of adding more particles and other graphics, ensuring that this test is scalable for some time to come.
The WebGL Aquarium from the Chrome Experiments site is being replaced with WebGL Solar System for much the same reason (WebGL Solar System is more taxing and configurable than WebGL Aquarium).
Finally, we added a Mozilla-created WebGL variant of the famous FishIE HTML5 hardware acceleration test from the IE Test Drive site. All three tests yield lower frame rates, are configurable, have higher FPS limits, and provide steadier FPS counts.
ThoughtsInComputation Particles

Unlike the Khronos Particles benchmark, the ThoughtsInComputing variant puts Firefox ahead of Chrome by a significant margin: 62 FPS versus 39. The same result is seen in Mac OS X. However, Firefox only manages to produce 46 FPS on the Apple platform.
WebGL Solar System

On Windows 7, Chrome 13 beats Firefox 6 in the WebGL Solar System demo, 24 FPS to 16. The placing is reversed on OS X, with Mozilla besting Google by less than two FPS.
WebGL FishIE

Chrome 13 regains its lead in the WebGL version of the FishIE test, beating Firefox 6 by 10 FPS. The punishment gets worse for Mozilla on Mac OS X, where Chrome beats Firefox 53 FPS to 27.
The edge in WebGL performance goes to Chrome 13 in Windows 7 and Firefox 6 in OS X Lion.
- Crowning A Web-Browsing King In Windows 7 And OS X
- The Contenders
- A Spotlight On Lion's Safari
- Hardware And Test Setup
- Performance Benchmarks: Startup Time
- Performance Benchmarks: Page Load Time
- Performance Benchmarks: JavaScript, DOM, And CSS
- Performance Benchmarks: Flash, Java, And Silverlight
- Performance Benchmarks: HTML5
- Performance Benchmarks: HTML5 Hardware Acceleration And WebGL
- Efficiency Benchmarks: Memory Usage
- Efficiency Benchmarks: Memory Management
- Reliability Benchmarks: Proper Page Loads
- Conformance Benchmarks: HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, And DOM
- Placing Tables
- Analysis Tables
- Two Winners: One In Windows 7, One in OS X
thank you, workin' on it
chrome13 completely obliterats it.
and firefox 8/9 are still a memory hog.
not really surprised by poor show of ie9. moat updates it gets are "security updates".
Yeah? And exactly what principle would that be?
Bring back the Google Dictionary, otherwise I will use Bing Search, Firefox and Facebook instead of Google Search, Chrome and G+.
According to the graphic on "Reliability Benchmarks: Proper Page Loads" on MacOS Firefox is actually second, not third.
thank you, workin' on it
These "browser" GP are getting more and more complete and the're always very interesting.
I have to say, I am a bit surprised to see FF being so close to Chrome now: kudos to Mozilla.
I have been using FF since 1.0 and only recently coupled it with Chrome (it is just convenient for me to have 2 completely different setups).
FF 7.0 should have a significant boost in memory efficiency: if everything else stays the same, we´ll have a new champion ...
But if anythin is clear from these reviews, is that nothing stays the same for very long in the browser´s domain (well, except IE).
Looking forward to GP7, whenever that will be.
You should've put more emphasis on the actual scores and performances in tests rather than count the times when certain browsers placed 1st. Thus a browser that had a small advantage in more and minor tests and at the same time severe handicaps in more important but fewer tests would seem better, when technically it is not. Suggestion: tie all the candidates when the differences between them in a certain test are less than a single digit percent. Good article anyway.
And to think Apple hates Flash...
There are no points in the analysis tables. They simply list how each browser rates per category of testing. The 'Strong' part of the table was added a long time ago and it basically means that it's right up there with the winner in terms of performance. When we get a solid point-based scoring system figured out 'Winner' will only receive a minor boost above 'Strong', whereas 'Strong' will receive a significant boost above 'Acceptable', and 'Acceptable' above 'Weak'. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer with every WBGP. The composite tests are a BIG step in that direction, and the new benchmark rankings further lay the groundwork for a fair scoring system which accurately reflects scale.
The analysis tables were created to balance the raw placing tables. The problem with what you're saying is that you would have to decide which categories are more important than others. Is JavaScript more important than CSS? Is HTML5 more important than Flash? This is going to depend on who you ask. People who only watch Netflix with an HTPC will put mega emphasis on Silverlight perf, whereas the chronic YouTuber will be more concerned with Flash, and devs are going to gravitate towards standards conformance. Ranking benchmarks based on the importance of what they test isn't a one-size-fits-all type of thing with Web browsers. As far as your other suggestion, dealing with practical ties, this is something we definitely want to look into moving forward. Thanks!