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.

Page Load Time Performance Benchmarks

Like the startup time tests, our page load times have also split into two groups of testing: uncached and cached.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Uncached Page Load Time

Non-cached page load time is taken from browsers with a completely cleared cache and clean history. Non-cached page load time is indicative of the loading time for a page you've never been to before.

Windows 7 Detail View

Mac OS X Detail View

Uncached Page Load Time Composite

This chart displays the average time each Web browser takes to load all nine test Web sites.

When loading brand new pages in Windows 7, it's Google Chrome that takes the lead with an average of 1.5 seconds. Second place is shared by Safari and IE9 at 1.7 seconds. Firefox 9 takes third at just 1.76 seconds, and Opera places last at 1.87 seconds.

The finishing order changes slightly in Mac OS X, though Chrome 16 still manages to hang on to first place. Second place goes to Firefox 9, which again earns nearly the same score as in Windows 7. Apple's Safari takes third on its native platform, while Opera for OS X is the only Web browser to take longer than two seconds, placing last.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Cached Page Load Time

The cached page load time tests are performed with the test pages already fully loaded into the browsers cache and history. Cached page load time is indicative of the loading time you can expect for a page you regularly visit.

Windows 7 Detail View

Mac OS X Detail View

Cached Page Load Time Composite

When loading previously-visited Web pages, Google Chrome again takes the lead in Windows 7 at three-quarters of a second, followed by WebKit cousin Apple Safari at 0.8 seconds. Opera shoots up from fifth place to third for cached pages, loading in around one second. Firefox 9 remains in fourth place with a time of 1.15 seconds. IE9 drops to fifth place from third to finish at nearly 1.5 seconds.

In Mac OS X, Apple Safari barely edges out Chrome for first place (both place under the one-second mark). Firefox takes third at 1.1 seconds, and Opera finishes last at 1.25 seconds.

Adam Overa
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