Peacekeeper

The placing in Windows 7 for Peacekeeper is: Chrome, Opera, Safari, IE, and Firefox. Safari 5.10 for Windows surges ahead of its 5.05 score by nearly 1700 points. Other than Safari, the Peacekeeper scores from Windows are virtually the same as we saw in WBGP5, with minor improvements favoring the other four browsers.
The placing in OS X is slightly different, with the number two spot going to Safari, and Opera taking third.
| JavaScript |
Kraken

The Kraken results are nearly the same as what we saw in WBGP5, only Chrome shows significant improvement, shaving 450 milliseconds off its already-winning time. Firefox again places second, with Opera in third, IE9 in fourth, and Safari picking up the rear.
The story changes in OS X. Safari earns third place on its native platform, beating Opera and shaving 5000 milliseconds off its Windows 7 score.
SunSpider

The finishing order is again the same as it was in WBGP5, with IE9 taking the gold, followed by Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and then Safari. The only notable change is that Safari 5.10 takes an additional 40 milliseconds over version 5.05.
The order completely changes in OS X. Firefox takes first place, followed by Safari and Chrome in a near-tie for third, with Opera coming in last.
| DOM |
Dromeao DOM

As usual, Opera beats everyone with ease in DOM testing. Firefox 6 earns second place with a score 100 runs per second higher than Firefox 5. Safari 5.10 adds about 100 runs over Safari 5.05, jumping from fourth up to third. Chrome 13 finishes fourth, with a score 200 runs less than Chrome 12. Internet Explorer 9 again winds up in last place, scoring only half of what Opera did.
All is not well for Opera on Mac OS X. The Norwegian Web browser that had been tearing up the competition in DOM benchmarks falls to nearly half of its Windows 7 score, barely taking third place.
| CSS |
Maze Solver
We tweaked the methodology for testing Maze Solver. The maze is now cleared and re-created for each iteration of this test, and more iterations are used for generating results.

Chrome still holds the lead, but Safari jumps from fourth place to second. Opera drops to third, and IE9 drops to fourth due to Safari 5.1's higher score. Firefox is again far behind the competition in this test, with miserable scores exceeding one minute. All of the Web browsers perform noticeably worse in Mac OS X than in Windows 7.
- 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!