Web Browser Grand Prix: Firefox 15, Safari 6, OS X Mountain Lion

by
57 Comments

Standards Conformance

Composite Scoring

The standards conformance composite is determined by dividing the results of each test by the maximum score of that test, then multiplying by 100 to get a percentage. The percentage results of the three tests are then averaged together to achieve a composite grade.

Chrome takes first place on both operating systems with a B-. It is followed by Safari in second place on OS X with Opera and Firefox caught up in a tie for last, both achieving an equal C. Opera manages an extra percentage point on Windows 7 to place second with Firefox close behind in third. Last place in Windows 7 goes to Microsoft's own IE9 with the only failing grade.

Drill Down

The charts below are for the three standards conformance tests: Ecmascript Language test262, HTML5Test.com, and The CSS3 Test.

JavaScriptJavaScriptHTML5HTML5CSS3CSS3

IE9 is significantly behind the curve in all three disciplines, while Chrome's better-than-average HTML5 and CSS3 scores allow Google to dominate standards conformance.

Previous Next
Summary
  1. The Top Four Browsers, Tested And Ranked
  2. Chrome, Firefox, IE9, Opera, Safari
  3. Test System Specs And Software Setup
  4. Test Suite And Methodology
  5. Start Time
  6. Page Load Time
  7. JavaScript Performance
  8. DOM And CSS Performance
  9. HTML5 Performance
  10. Hardware Acceleration Performance
  11. Plug-In Performance: Flash, Java, Silverlight
  12. Memory Efficiency
  13. Reliability, Responsiveness, And Security
  14. Standards Conformance
  15. Test Analysis
  16. OS X And Windows 7 Winners' Circle
About the author
Adam Overa

Adam Overa was the Managing Editor of Tom's Hardware US from 2012-2017

Read more
Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
57 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Eggrenade
    It would be nice if I could view the additional charts with only one click, and not in a separate window.
  • adamovera
    JOSHSKORNHow about 64-bit Internet Explorer 9 vs Waterfox 15.0?

    When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
  • nitrium
    So OSX is really just a LOT slower than Win7 generally for web browsing on the identical hardware. Is that right?
    • Other Comments
  • glurg
    chrome ftw
  • Eggrenade
    It would be nice if I could view the additional charts with only one click, and not in a separate window.
  • lahawzel
    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.

    (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!)
  • bennaye
    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.

    as always, a great read.
  • Anonymous
    Would like to see this again after IE10 is released.
  • JOSHSKORN
    How about 64-bit Internet Explorer 9 vs Waterfox 15.0?
  • adamovera
    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!
  • adamovera
    AdamsTaiwanWould like to see this again after IE10 is released.

    Absolutely, a Windows 8-based WBGP is already in the cards for October.
  • adamovera
    JOSHSKORNHow about 64-bit Internet Explorer 9 vs Waterfox 15.0?

    When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
  • Anonymous
    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?

    Testing these browsers at stock doesn't reveal even an eighth of the picture.
  • nitrium
    So OSX is really just a LOT slower than Win7 generally for web browsing on the identical hardware. Is that right?
  • shahrooz
    it would be nice to have unreleased(Beta/Aurora/etc) versions of the browsers in benchmarks and scoring but only stable releases in the crowning so it will be fair. many users opt for beta releases of browsers including myself, I use Firefox nightly(18.0a1)

    btw great work adamovera keep it up man
  • adamovera
    boopyI 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?Testing these browsers at stock doesn't reveal even an eighth of the picture.

    Interesting idea, so basically a tweaked-out edition of the WBGP, where we use all the tools available to each browser for performance gains... That could work, but I gotta warn you that the next three WBGPs are already decided, so it would probably be real late in the year, or even next year before I could get to it.
  • adamovera
    nitriumSo OSX is really just a LOT slower than Win7 generally for web browsing on the identical hardware. Is that right?

    Nearly every performance benchmark there is points in that direction. This probably has a lot to do with how much time developers spend optimizing for Windows - after all, Windows holds 90+% of the desktop user base. However, it is interesting that the rift between Windows and OS X is far greater than between Windows and Linux for the core stuff like JS, CSS, DOM, page loads, etc. Plug-ins are another story, they're always much better on Windows than the other two platforms.
  • merikafyeah
    All things considered, IE9 does pretty well for a browser that's not even in the double-digits.
  • adamovera
    shahroozit would be nice to have unreleased(Beta/Aurora/etc) versions of the browsers in benchmarks and scoring but only stable releases in the crowning so it will be fair. many users opt for beta releases of browsers including myself, I use Firefox nightly(18.0a1)btw great work adamovera keep it up man

    The big problem with including the dev channel browsers is the amount of time it takes to produce the article (testing/charts/writing/editing/translating), combined with the tendency of the dev channel to constantly update. Before testing is even completed it's certain that something will update. TBH, the stable channels of Chrome and Firefox are a handful as it is. For example, for this article I had to test 8 browsers (4 on each OS), but I ended up testing 18+ due to OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Flash, and Java updates. Sorry, but I'm just not sure it's even doable in this format. Thanks for reading!
  • shahrooz
    adamoveraThe big problem with including the dev channel browsers is the amount of time it takes to produce the article (testing/charts/writing/editing/translating), combined with the tendency of the dev channel to constantly update. Before testing is even completed it's certain that something will update. TBH, the stable channels of Chrome and Firefox are a handful as it is. For example, for this article I had to test 8 browsers (4 on each OS), but I ended up testing 18+ due to OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Flash, and Java updates. Sorry, but I'm just not sure it's even doable in this format. Thanks for reading!

    well I wanted to include it in my comment myself but I forgot I wanted to say if the timing allows :)
  • Anonymous
    Meaningless tests designed to generate clicks. All browsers are mature enough at this point in terms of performance. Even the lowly IE is OK. What matters is who is the browser working for, the user, or the mothership? And that's where FF is king. It's about treacherous, gimmicky commercial software made to push standards lock-in and data mining your information, versus free open source software that serves YOUR needs. And it's not only about the code being open either (Chrome). Get savvy on this stuff. Performance metrics are for FPS nerd teenagers.
  • JoeMomma
    Call me Old Skool but for me functionality and ease of use far outweigh speed.
    My computer is fast enough that it does not really mater what browser I choose.
    In my case, ease of use means that I can see what is going on.
    I decry the trend towards dumbing down the UI on every program I use.
    (I also refuse to call software 'Apps', to me an app is a mini-program on a phone.)
    I always turn on all menus, buttons and labels in WaterFox.

    BTW: Good point.
    Why don't you include WaterFox in your testing?
    It is the 64 bit version of FireFox and I am sure that in your speed tests it may do a little better.
  • azathoth
    Internet Explorer is starting to look pretty good in terms of speed.
Display more comments
Most Popular
  1. Gearbox 'Demakes' Borderlands 2 Into 16-bit Flash Game
The Latest On Tom's Hardware
Edition
Subscribe to our newsletter
Company
Resources
Other Purch sites
  • © 2019 Purch All Rights Reserved.