Plug-In Performance: Flash, Java, Silverlight
The Flash, Java, and Silverlight composites are the geometric mean of the individual RIABench tests for each plug-in. The Java score includes the millisecond results of Primetest, Prime Factorization, JPEG Encoding, MD5 Hashing, Random Key Generator, Run-length Encoding, and Focus Test. The Flash and Silverlight scores also include the frames per second results of 3D Test, 2D Test, and Memory Management.
Safari, Opera, and Firefox are in a practical tie for first place on OS X. Chrome, with its special built-in version of Flash, performs slightly worse than the other contenders. The same results are seen on Windows 7, although the scores are nearly double the OS X scores.
Java is a complete four-way tie on both operating systems, with Windows 7 more than doubling the OS X scores.
Silverlight performance is another four-way tie on Mountain Lion, however Firefox is shown to be a cut above the competition on Windows 7.
The charts below contain the detailed view of each RIABench test for Flash, Java, and Silverlight.
Chrome is usually slightly behind in Flash performance due to its sand-boxed Flash player, the only real surprise here is Firefox for Windows having a small advantage in Silverlight performance.
Current page: Plug-In Performance: Flash, Java, SilverlightPrev Page Hardware Acceleration Performance Next Page Memory Efficiency
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
It would be nice if I could view the additional charts with only one click, and not in a separate window.Reply
It's nice to see Chrome performing so well, but I'm still waiting on the Chrome equivalents of all the plugins I use in FF before I think about switching. The web just doesn't feel the same without them.Reply
(The nice popular ones like ABP, Lazarus, Greasemonkey all have equivalents; some lesser-used plugins like Rikaichan also have ports by now. Only a matter of time!)
chrome is absolutely deserving of the award. say what you will about the frequent patch releases touted as upgrades, chrome is a very good browser, as shown by this month's article. even on OSX there is only a small margin separating chrome and safari. but the one qualm i do have with chrome is the lack of add-ons compared to firefox. and i a lot of people share this concern. the add-ons do make the experience that much better.Reply
as always, a great read.
Would like to see this again after IE10 is released.Reply
How about 64-bit Internet Explorer 9 vs Waterfox 15.0?Reply
bennayechrome is absolutely deserving of the award. say what you will about the frequent patch releases touted as upgrades, chrome is a very good browser, as shown by this month's article. even on OSX there is only a small margin separating chrome and safari. but the one qualm i do have with chrome is the lack of add-ons compared to firefox. and i a lot of people share this concern. the add-ons do make the experience that much better.as always, a great read.All versions of Chrome hold up incredibly well cross-platform, if you look back at the two Linux WBGPs, it won there, too. Thanks for reading!Reply
AdamsTaiwanWould like to see this again after IE10 is released.Absolutely, a Windows 8-based WBGP is already in the cards for October.Reply
JOSHSKORNHow about 64-bit Internet Explorer 9 vs Waterfox 15.0?When we have more stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.Reply
I wish Tom's would fiddle around with the settings of these browsers for these tests. In every System Builder Marathon you overclock the builds, why not try and crank the most speed while ensuring better memory management out of the browser as well?Reply
Testing these browsers at stock doesn't reveal even an eighth of the picture.