Windows 7 Placing Tables
| Performance Placing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
| Chrome | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Firefox | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Internet Explorer | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Opera | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| Safari | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 |
When we only take raw placing in the performance tests into account, Chrome 13 appears to have a slight lead over Firefox 6 and IE9.
| WebGL Placing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | |
| Chrome | 2 | 1 |
| Firefox | 1 | 2 |
The WebGL testing on Windows 7 gives the edge to Google Chrome 13 over Mozilla Firefox 6.
| Efficiency Placing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
| Chrome | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Firefox | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Internet Explorer | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Opera | 1 | 3 | |||
| Safari | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
Chrome appears to win here, followed closely by IE9, then Safari, Firefox, and Opera.
| Reliability Placing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th |
| Opera | Safari | Firefox | Chrome | Internet Explorer |
With a single test, the reliability placing is pretty straightforward.
| Conformance Placing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
| Chrome | 3 | 1 | |||
| Firefox | 2 | 2 | |||
| Internet Explorer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Opera | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Safari | 2 | 2 | |||
The overall conformance placing skews the results of our composite score. Despite the placing table, Chrome 13 sweeps the conformance testing in Windows 7, followed closely by Firefox 6. Safari 5.1 earns third, Opera drops to fourth, and IE9 come in last.
| Total Placing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
| Chrome | 10 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 |
| Firefox | 7 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Internet Explorer | 6 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Opera | 6 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 7 |
| Safari | 4 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 6 |
The total placing clearly has Chrome in the lead, followed by Firefox. Internet Explorer grabs third, while Opera takes fourth, and Safari for Windows places last.
Mac OS X Lion Placing Tables
| Performance Placing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
| Chrome | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Firefox | 3 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Opera | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Safari | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1 |
The Mac OS X Lion-based performance results offer a stark contrast to the Windows 7 table. In OS X, Safari holds a clear advantage, followed by Opera. Windows 7-winner Chrome only places third on the Apple platform, while Firefox takes fourth.
| WebGL Placing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | |
| Chrome | 1 | 2 |
| Firefox | 2 | 1 |
The WebGL placing is also reversed in OS X, with Firefox beating Chrome.
| Reliability Placing | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| Opera | Firefox | Chrome | Safari |
Strangely, Safari falls short of its Windows 7 numbers in reliability placing for OS X.
| Conformance Placing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
| Chrome | 3 | 1 | ||
| Firefox | 2 | 2 | ||
| Opera | 2 | 2 | ||
| Safari | 2 | 2 | ||
Conformance placing in Lion is nearly the same as in Windows 7, just with one less browser.
| Total Placing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | |
| Chrome | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Firefox | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Opera | 9 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Safari | 9 | 9 | 6 | 2 |
The OS X total placing shows Safari to be the clear winner, with Opera and Chrome duking it out for second. Firefox is most definitely the last-place finisher.
- 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!