Web Browser Grand Prix: Firefox 15, Safari 6, OS X Mountain Lion
Today we're breaking out the Hackintosh for our first-ever Web Browser Grand Prix on Apple OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion). How will Chrome 21, Firefox 15, Opera 12.02, and Safari 6 stack up against each other, and to IE9 and the rest of the Windows 7 browsers?
Test Analysis
Finishes
Each category of testing has four columns: Winner, Strong, Average, and Weak. The Winner is obviously the browser that achieves the highest scores in that category. The Strong column is for browsers exhibiting superior performance, but not achieving a first-place victory. Average is for browsers that perform adequately or in-line with a majority of their competitors. A Weak finish is assigned to browsers that perform poorly, or substantially lower than their competitors.
Brackets
In order to reflect how each category of testing affects the average end-user Web browsing experience, we need to create brackets (or levels of importance) to place the different categories of testing into.
Essential | CSS, DOM, JavaScript, Reliability, Standards Conformance |
---|---|
Important | Flash, HTML5, Memory Efficiency, Page Load Time, Responsiveness, Security, Startup Time |
Nonessential | Java, Silverlight |
Unimportant | HTML5 Hardware Acceleration, WebGL |
The Essential bracket contains those categories of testing that are indispensable to rendering the vast majority of Web pages online today. The Important bracket is for categories not quite essential to browsing the Web, yet still affect the user experience to a great degree. The Nonessential bracket contains the popular plug-ins Java and Silverlight. While these plug-in technologies are nowhere near as ubiquitous as Flash, certain applications like corporate intranet apps and Netflix simply will not work without them. Finally, the Unimportant bracket is for emerging technologies, such as HTML5 Hardware Acceleration and WebGL, which still don't really exist outside of testing/demo sites.
Points
Now that the brackets are all sorted out, we can apply a numerical point system to the finishes of each bracket.
Header Cell - Column 0 | Winner | Strong | Average | Weak |
---|---|---|---|---|
Essential | 2.5 | 2 | 1.5 | -2 |
Important | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | -1.5 |
Nonessential | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 | -1 |
Unimportant | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | -0.5 |
As you can see, we decided to apply negative point values to the Weak finishes and start the Average performances at zero for the Unimportant bracket. The Winner has also been de-emphasized over Strong finishes, with just a small tie-breaking bonus going to Winner.
OS X 10.8 Analysis Table
Header Cell - Column 0 | Winner | Strong | Average | Weak |
---|---|---|---|---|
Essential | ||||
CSS | Firefox | Row 1 - Cell 2 | Chrome, Safari | Opera |
DOM | Firefox | Row 2 - Cell 2 | Chrome, Safari | Opera |
JavaScript | Chrome | Safari | Firefox, Opera | Row 3 - Cell 4 |
Reliability | Opera | Row 4 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Safari | Chrome |
Standards Conformance | Chrome | Row 5 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Opera, Safari | Row 5 - Cell 4 |
Important | ||||
Flash | Firefox, Opera, Safari | Chrome | Row 7 - Cell 3 | Row 7 - Cell 4 |
HTML5 | Safari | Row 8 - Cell 2 | Chrome | Firefox, Opera |
Memory Efficiency | Chrome | Row 9 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Opera, Safari | Row 9 - Cell 4 |
Page Load Time | Chrome | Row 10 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Opera, Safari | Row 10 - Cell 4 |
Responsiveness | Opera | Firefox, Safari | Chrome | Row 11 - Cell 4 |
Security | Chrome | Safari | Firefox | Opera |
Startup Time | Chrome | Safari | Firefox | Opera |
Nonessential | ||||
Java | Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari | Row 15 - Cell 2 | Row 15 - Cell 3 | Row 15 - Cell 4 |
Silverlight | Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari | Row 16 - Cell 2 | Row 16 - Cell 3 | Row 16 - Cell 4 |
Unimportant | ||||
HTML5 Hardware Acceleration | Safari | Row 18 - Cell 2 | Chrome | Firefox, Opera |
WebGL | Firefox | Row 19 - Cell 2 | Chrome | Opera, Safari |
Now, let's see how the Windows 7 Web browsers compare to each other.
Windows 7 Analysis Table
Header Cell - Column 0 | Winner | Strong | Average | Weak |
---|---|---|---|---|
Essential | ||||
CSS | Firefox | Row 1 - Cell 2 | Chrome, IE | Opera |
DOM | Chrome | Row 2 - Cell 2 | Firefox, IE | Opera |
JavaScript | Chrome | Row 3 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Opera | IE |
Reliability | Opera | Row 4 - Cell 2 | Chrome, Firefox, IE | Row 4 - Cell 4 |
Standards Conformance | Chrome | Row 5 - Cell 2 | Firefox, Opera | IE |
Important | ||||
Flash | Firefox, IE, Opera | Chrome | Row 7 - Cell 3 | Row 7 - Cell 4 |
HTML5 | IE | Row 8 - Cell 2 | Chrome, Firefox | Opera |
Memory Efficiency | Chrome | IE, Firefox | Opera | Row 9 - Cell 4 |
Page Load Time | IE | Row 10 - Cell 2 | Chrome, Firefox, Opera | Row 10 - Cell 4 |
Responsiveness | Opera | Firefox | Chrome | IE |
Security | Chrome | Row 12 - Cell 2 | Firefox, IE | Opera |
Startup Time | Chrome | Opera | Firefox, IE | Row 13 - Cell 4 |
Nonessential | ||||
Java | Chrome, Firefox, IE, Opera | Row 15 - Cell 2 | Row 15 - Cell 3 | Row 15 - Cell 4 |
Silverlight | Firefox | Chrome, IE, Opera | Row 16 - Cell 3 | Row 16 - Cell 4 |
Unimportant | ||||
HTML5 Hardware Acceleration | Firefox | IE | Chrome | Opera |
WebGL | Firefox | Row 19 - Cell 2 | Chrome | IE, Opera |
And the winners are...
Current page: Test Analysis
Prev Page Standards Conformance Next Page OS X And Windows 7 Winners' CircleStay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
-
Eggrenade It would be nice if I could view the additional charts with only one click, and not in a separate window.Reply -
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.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!) -
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.Reply
as always, a great read. -
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!Reply -
adamovera AdamsTaiwanWould like to see this again after IE10 is released.Absolutely, a Windows 8-based WBGP is already in the cards for October.Reply -
adamovera 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.