Web Browser Grand Prix VIII: Chrome 16, Firefox 9, And Mac OS X

Features
By
Published

Back in August, Mozilla took the WBGP crown with Firefox 7. Can Firefox 9 retain that title? And how are the top Web browsers doing in Mac OS X? We used a Hackintosh last time. This time, we're testing on the world's first Ultrabook, the MacBook Air.

Benchmark Analysis

In our last installment, Web Browser Grand Prix 7: Firefox 7, Chrome 14, Opera 11.51, we completely dropped the raw placing tables in favor of the analysis tables that more closely reflect the scale of victory. Let's quickly take a moment to go over what these mean.

The analysis tables hold categories for each type of benchmark. For example, Mozilla Dromaeo DOM is represented by the DOM category, while Peacekeeper, the Krakens, and SunSpiders are represented together under the JavaScript category.

Each category has four columns: winner, strong, acceptable, and weak. Winner is obviously the browser that achieves the highest scores for the category. The strong column is for those browsers exhibiting superior performance, but no victory. Acceptable is for browsers that perform neither spectacularly nor poorly, but merely adequately. For tests that measure frame rates, a score near the 30 FPS range gets that browser filed into the acceptable column. The weak column is for browsers that perform poorly or substantially lower than their competitors.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

In the event of a complete tie in the analysis tables, we simply go back to the individual benchmarks and look at the raw difference in scores.

The Windows 7-based standings for Chrome 16, Firefox 9, Internet Explorer 9, Opera 11.60, and Safari 5.1.2 are found in the table below.

Windows 7 Analysis Table

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Winner Strong Acceptable Weak
Performance Benchmarks
Startup Time, Light Safari Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera Row 1 - Cell 3 Row 1 - Cell 4
Startup Time, Heavy Internet Explorer Chrome, Opera Firefox Safari
Page Load Time, Uncached Chrome Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari Row 3 - Cell 3 Row 3 - Cell 4
Page Load Time, Cached Chrome Safari Firefox, Opera Internet Explorer
JavaScript Chrome Firefox Opera Internet Explorer, Safari
DOM Opera Chrome, Firefox Safari Internet Explorer
CSS Safari Chrome Internet Explorer, Opera Firefox
Flash Safari Internet Explorer, Opera Chrome, Firefox Row 8 - Cell 4
Java Firefox Chrome Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari Row 9 - Cell 4
Silverlight Opera Row 10 - Cell 2 Firefox, Internet Explorer Chrome, Safari
HTML5 Internet Explorer Firefox Chrome, Safari Opera
HTML5 Hardware Acceleration Internet Explorer Firefox Row 12 - Cell 3 Chrome, Opera, Safari
WebGL Firefox Row 13 - Cell 2 Chrome Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari
Efficiency Benchmarks
Memory Usage, Light Internet Explorer Safari, Opera Chrome, Firefox Row 15 - Cell 4
Memory Usage, Heavy Safari Row 16 - Cell 2 Chrome, Firefox, Opera Internet Explorer
Memory Management Chrome Internet Explorer Firefox Opera, Safari
Reliability Benchmarks
Proper Page Loads Firefox, Opera Safari Chrome Internet Explorer
Conformance Benchmarks
HTML5 Chrome Firefox, Opera Row 21 - Cell 3 Internet Explorer, Safari
JavaScript Opera Firefox Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari Row 22 - Cell 4

Now let's see how Chrome 16, Firefox 9, Opera 11.60, and Safari 5.1.2 fare on the MacBook Air's native platform of Mac OS X.

Mac OS X (Lion) Analysis Table

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Winner Strong Acceptable Weak
Performance Benchmarks
Startup Time, Light Safari Firefox Chrome Opera
Startup Time, Heavy Firefox Opera Chrome, Safari Row 2 - Cell 4
Page Load Time, Uncached Chrome Firefox Safari Opera
Page Load Time, Cached Safari Chrome Firefox, Opera Row 4 - Cell 4
JavaScript Chrome Firefox Safari Opera
DOM Firefox Chrome, Safari Opera Row 6 - Cell 4
CSS Safari Chrome Opera Firefox
Flash Firefox Row 8 - Cell 2 Chrome, Opera, Safari Row 8 - Cell 4
Java Opera Row 9 - Cell 2 Safari Chrome, Firefox
Silverlight Safari Row 10 - Cell 2 Row 10 - Cell 3 Chrome, Firefox, Opera
HTML5 Safari Row 11 - Cell 2 Chrome, Opera Firefox
HTML5 Hardware Acceleration Safari Row 12 - Cell 2 Row 12 - Cell 3 Chrome, Firefox, Opera
WebGL Row 13 - Cell 1 Row 13 - Cell 2 Chrome, Firefox Opera, Safari
Efficiency Benchmarks
Memory Usage, Light Safari Row 15 - Cell 2 Opera Firefox, Chrome
Memory Usage, Heavy Opera Safari Firefox Chrome
Memory Management Chrome Row 17 - Cell 2 Row 17 - Cell 3 Firefox, Opera, Safari
Reliability Benchmarks
Proper Page Loads Opera Firefox Chrome, Safari Row 19 - Cell 4
Conformance Benchmarks
HTML5 Chrome Firefox, Opera Safari Row 21 - Cell 4
JavaScript Opera Firefox Chrome, Safari Row 22 - Cell 4

Without further ado, let's crown our Web Browser Grand Prix VIII champions.

152 Comments Comment from the forums
  • twztechman
    Been using Firefox for years - it works best for me.
    Reply
  • shiftmx112
    This makes it worth putting up with the constant updates on Aurora. :)
    Reply
  • The best part is I'm quite sure that this is using an out of the box build. Using a PGO compiled nighlty build, with about:config properly configured, and addons like Adblock/NoScript blocking things from ever loading Firefox is significantly faster than these benchmarks state.
    Reply
  • frost_fenix
    I have use firefox and chrome interchangeably for a few years now. I enjoy chromes streamlined design but have recently discovered the noscript addon for Firefox and have since favored Firefox. I have also found Firefox to be more compatable with school webpages and application pages. Still either firefox or chrome is better than IE.
    Reply
  • pharoahhalfdead
    Good point Stoof. I have IE9 and the newest FF, and with the FF add ons, it blows IE out of the water. The majority of IE pages like yahoo video links, boxingscene etc take 6 or more seconds to load, whereas FF is only a fraction of the time.

    I think add ons are much easier to find with FF, and there seems to be a wider variety. Then again I do realize this article wasn't about browsers with add ons.
    Reply
  • hardcore_gamer
    The only one thing I hate about firefox is that it takes a lot of time to launch.
    Reply
  • adamovera
    stoofThe best part is I'm quite sure that this is using an out of the box build. Using a PGO compiled nighlty build, with about:config properly configured, and addons like Adblock/NoScript blocking things from ever loading Firefox is significantly faster than these benchmarks state.Yes, we're using everything stock. There is no one-size-fits-all combination of plug-ins to standardize on, and every browser might not have the exact same plugins available. So that throws out a fair comparison between browsers - wouldn't work for the WBGP. Perhaps an article concentrating specifically on Firefox (or another Web browser) with and without various plug-ins would clear that up?
    Reply
  • Please use Firefox's latest logo, the one with the shiny orb in Mozilla's press kit! The one they're using now is the old one. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/brand/identity/
    Reply
  • nevertell
    Chrome is the easiest to use if you've got lots of tabs open. Scrolling through them with mouse is a breeze and tab management is just excellent.
    Reply
  • soccerdocks
    frost_fenix. I enjoy chromes streamlined design but have recently discovered the noscript addon for Firefox and have since favored Firefox.
    Why do people seem to forget Chrome has this built in. All you have to do is go into the options menu and disable JavaScript.
    Reply