Web Browser Grand Prix 9: Chrome 17, Firefox 10, And Ubuntu
-
Page 1:Web Browser Grand Prix 9: The Linux Circuit
-
Page 2:The Top 5: Chrome, Firefox, IE9, Opera, And Safari
-
Page 3:Test System Specs And Software Setup
-
Page 4:WBGP9 Test Suite And Methodology
-
Page 5:Startup Time Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 6:Page Load Time Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 7:JavaScript Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 8:DOM And CSS Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 9:Flash Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 10:Java And Silverlight Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 11:HTML5 Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 12:Hardware Acceleration Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 13:WebGL Performance Benchmarks
-
Page 14:Memory Efficiency Benchmarks
-
Page 15:Proper Page Load Reliability Benchmarks
-
Page 16:Standards Conformance Benchmarks
-
Page 17:Benchmark Analysis: Windows 7 And Ubuntu 11.10
-
Page 18:Two Champions Are Crowned: Windows 7 And Linux
Proper Page Load Reliability Benchmarks
Our proper page load test is done during the 40-tab memory usage benchmark. Any time a browser fails to fully and properly display a page, we recorded that page as a failure. Because there are 40 tabs in this metric, the maximum score is a 0, while the lowest score is 40.
Safari loads pages slowly, as we saw in our eight-tab startup time test, but it does so properly. We registered less than five failures in Safari, earning Apple's browser a top spot in proper page load reliability. Opera finishes close behind with just five failures. Firefox achieves a respectable third place. Chrome suffered almost 15 errors, relegating it to fourth place, while IE9 demonstrated an abominable 29 failures. That's almost three out of every four pages with broken or missing elements!
Opera maintains its good name in Linux. Chrome stays about the same as in Windows, while Firefox takes a nosedive, encountering trouble with nearly 18 out of 40 tabs.
Benchmark Connection: Eight-Tab Startup Time
Although Safari earns its good reliability score, the price you pay is performance. From our eight-tab startup time test, we watch first-hand how each browser loads pages. Safari tackles them one at a time, which apparently helps with reliability, even as it incurs a significant performance penalty. Compare this to how Opera, Chrome, and IE9 load pages. All three browsers scramble to load as many pages as possible at the same time. This seems to have an adverse effect on proper loading. Firefox takes a staggered approach, holding off on the next tab until its current task is well on its way to being displayed.
The most remarkable parallel is drawn from a comparison in Opera, which loads all of its tabs at exactly the same time like Chrome and IE9, yet still manages to pull off Safari/Firefox-like reliability. If you take this into account, Opera is the real winner on both platforms.
- Web Browser Grand Prix 9: The Linux Circuit
- The Top 5: Chrome, Firefox, IE9, Opera, And Safari
- Test System Specs And Software Setup
- WBGP9 Test Suite And Methodology
- Startup Time Performance Benchmarks
- Page Load Time Performance Benchmarks
- JavaScript Performance Benchmarks
- DOM And CSS Performance Benchmarks
- Flash Performance Benchmarks
- Java And Silverlight Performance Benchmarks
- HTML5 Performance Benchmarks
- Hardware Acceleration Performance Benchmarks
- WebGL Performance Benchmarks
- Memory Efficiency Benchmarks
- Proper Page Load Reliability Benchmarks
- Standards Conformance Benchmarks
- Benchmark Analysis: Windows 7 And Ubuntu 11.10
- Two Champions Are Crowned: Windows 7 And Linux
Also, AMD driver support in linux is poor compared to Nvidia.
For future Linux articles, can you use a Dx11 based Nvidia GPU?
It does well in HTML5 benches but 99% of the websites use primarily CSS and JS and HTML3, in which Firefox does poorly.
Also, AMD driver support in linux is poor compared to Nvidia.
For future Linux articles, can you use a Dx11 based Nvidia GPU?
It does well in HTML5 benches but 99% of the websites use primarily CSS and JS and HTML3, in which Firefox does poorly.
Even without hardware acceleration, it keeps up with the competition,
When that beast launches, it will kill FF/IE and most probably chrome too.
Moreover, the only driver enabled for hardware acceleration on Linux is the Nvidia driver: according to Mozilla (and verified by yours truly on AMD and Intel hardware), most display drivers in Linux suck when it comes to 2D rendering - ouch. Note that Mozilla and Google could add shims to circumvent those bugs, but they don't -not worth the effort, especially when driver makers could fix their bugs rather easily, leaving the browsers broken yet again.
I find Opera 12 really nice too. It can run with Opera 11.61. Opera 12 has a silver icon & 11.61 has its classic red. I like Firefox & Epiphany too.
Its a shame Safari and IE are not truly cross-platform.
i think that the HTML5 scores should be weighed by a factor of the percent of top40 sites that use HTML5.
This way actual importance of HTML5 can be judged in real world.
On Windows I feel that IE9 works really well for me, although Chrome is the speed demon! FF 4+ lost their appeal for me.
Internet Explorer has 64bits builds on Win7, and Firefox has "almost" a 64bits browser on Windows too: Waterfox, which is a semi-official Firefox for 64bits Windows. Waterfox in particular claims huge improvements over base 32bits install, I would like to see how that translates into real-world.
Not sure about availability of 64bits editions of other browsers on Windows.
Here are my wishes:
-clearly mention if the 32bits or 64bits version of the browser is used
-where applicable and relevant, test with both 32bits and 64bits variants. I would like to see IE and FF split into 32 and 64 variants on Win for example.
I personally migrated from FF to WF on my machines 3 weeks ago and find it noticeably faster in everyday use. WF is now my main browser.
I find almost all browsers require more and more memory the longer they run
Example: Chrome 17: 8 new tabs =1500MB
This sentence makes no sense to me. how can it "win" where it "simply cannot compete"?
IE9 64 bit performs very bad in comparison to the 32 bit builds.
For firefox/waterfox, on Windows, using 64 bit builds has the following
1. Native performance increase due to 64 bit.
2. Performance degradation due to the fact that the MSVC does not have the same memory optimizations for 64 bit as for 32 bit.
so overall the experience of 64 bit FF/WF is the same as 32 bit builds.
For 64 bit Ubuntu, you get the 64 bit FF by default..
For a really great optimised FF, use PALEMOON.
@AdamOvera : 32/64 bit should be clearly mentioned in the article.
Memory benchmarks are almost useless in WBGP. Browsers leak, and Firefox leaks ALOT. But that is not the only problem. Opera works ok even when it fills up RAM, but Firefox becomes close to useless when it gets RAM deprived.
Nothing works well when ram is full.
And bashing Opera for doing things different is a shame:Opera don't release RAM but opening closed tab is almost instant ,so they sacrifice RAM for speed.
So it is eating RAM AND becoming slow. I dont mind it eating RAM but it has to be responsive then.
indeed in your opinion.
Maze solver is only one test among hundreds of things CSS does. If you want to argue about what 99% of websites use. then remember 99.9999999999% of websites don't use maze solver. For 99% of the websites, I would argue firefox does excellent job on CSS.
Firefox has focused on js speed for years with dedicated team, and with current benchmark (overall 2nd), you still claim it perform "poorly"? Its hard to argue you don't have prejudice here.
99 % of websites use HTML3? please, you argument is like mixture of 1980s and 2020s, whatever way you can put down firefox.
If you dislike firefox, state it, no need to hide behind the fake data.
Yes, exactly! It's as if something brakes in Firefox when it gets over 1 GB and Opera is mostly unaffected. I have seen many reports of this, and across all FF versions. That was the main reason I was using Opera for a long time, but I can't stand some of the things they've been doing since late 10 versions. So I'm stuck with terrible Firefox performance, but at least it's customizable. It is its only saving grace.