Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 18, Firefox 11, Windows XP
Over the past two years, we've tested the top five Web browsers using modern PC hardware. But today, going against all that is sacred to the enthusiast crowd, we're breaking out an old beige box to bring you Web Browser Grand Prix: Windows XP Edition!
WBGP10 Test Suite And Methodology
We restart the computer and allow it to idle for a few minutes before benchmarking each browser. Other than the conformance benchmarks, all of our final scores are an average of several iterations. More iterations are run on tests that have short durations, lower scales, and/or higher variance.
All tests are placed into one of four groups: core, observation, dated, and quarantine. Core tests are considered current. These tests are usually trusted industry standards or our own creations, and they make up the foundation of the WBGP suite. Tests that are either generally unknown, mostly untested, or just too bleeding-edge are placed under observation. Tests classified as dated are either outdated, losing relevance, or otherwise need replacing. We are actively seeking community feedback and contributions regarding alternatives to these benchmarks. The final group is for quarantined benchmarks. Benchmarks find their way into quarantine by delivering dubious results or by being gamed. Whenever benchmarks that test the same thing yield conflicting results, more weight is given to tests with a better rating when creating the analysis tables.
The table below lists all 51 of the tests currently in our suite (along with a version number and link, where applicable), number of iterations performed, and current rating:
| Tom's Hardware Web Browser Grand Prix Test Suite v9.0 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Test Name | Iterations | Rating |
| Performance Tests (44) | ||
| Cold Startup Time: Single Tab | 3 | Core |
| Cold Startup Time: Eight Tabs | 3 | Core |
| Hot Startup Time: Single Tab | 3 | Core |
| Hot Startup Time: Eight Tabs | 3 | Core |
| Uncached Page Load Times (9 Test Pages) | 5 | Core |
| Cached Page Load Times (9 Test Pages) | 5 | Core |
| Kraken v1.1 | 2 | Core |
| Google SunSpider v0.91 Mod | 2 | Core |
| FutureMark Peacekeeper 2.0 | 2 | Core |
| Dromaeo DOM | 2 | Core |
| Maze Solver | 5 | Core |
| GUIMark2 Flash Vector Charting | 3 | Core |
| GUIMark2 Flash Bitmap Gaming | 3 | Core |
| GUIMark2 Flash Text Columns | 3 | Core |
| Flash Benchmark 2008 v1.09.1 | 2 | Core |
| GUIMark Java | 3 | Dated |
| Encog Silverlight | 3 | Dated |
| Facebook JSGameBench v4.1 | 2 | Core |
| GUIMark 2 HTML5 Vector Charting (1 pixel variant) | 3 | Core |
| GUIMark 2 HTML5 Bitmap Gaming | 3 | Core |
| GUIMark 2 HTML5 Text Columns | 3 | Core |
| Asteroids HTML5 Canvas 2D And JavaScript | 2 | Observation |
| Psychedelic Browsing | 2 | Core |
| Hardware Acceleration Stress Test | 2 | Dated |
| Mozilla WebGL FishIE | 5 | Core |
| WebGL Solar System | 5 | Observation |
| Efficiency Benchmarks (5) | ||
| Memory Usage: Single Tab | 3 | Core |
| Memory Usage: 40 Tabs | 3 | Core |
| Memory Management: -39 Tabs | 3 | Core |
| Memory Management: -39 Tabs (extra 2 minutes) | 3 | Core |
| Reliability Benchmarks (1) | ||
| Proper Page Loads | 3 | Core |
| Conformance Benchmarks (3) | ||
| Ecma test262 | 1 | Core |
| Peacekeeper 2.0 HTML5 Capabilities | 1 | Core |
| HTML5Test.com | 1 | Core |
Detailed individual methodologies are described on the pages corresponding to each benchmark.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: WBGP10 Test Suite And Methodology
Prev Page Test System Specs And Software Setup Next Page Startup Time Performance Benchmarks-
wheredahoodat "Both Opera and Chrome feltmuch smoother on our old PC than Firefox"Reply
I do kinda feel the difference with Firefox's responsive going from my main modern desktop to my older labtop that has regulated to a makeshift HTC. I believe Firefox XUL interface is the culprit; it was a big enough problem for Firefox mobile to abandon it in favor of native Android GUI, but who knows at this point. I guess might actually give Opera a chance. -
agnickolov How come only a single reader requested numerical composite scoring, that's the most logical way of scoring after all! With that said, I'd have liked if you didn't use the rankings but the raw scores after a more intelligent transformation as the input for weighted averaging...Reply
For example, for each category you could subtract the lowest-placed score from all scores and then normalize in the range by dividing all adjusted scores by the topmost adjusted score. This way the top perfomer always has 1 and the worst performer always has 0 modified score (you'd need to invert them for tests where lower is better of course, e.g. subtract these from 1). Then apply your ranks to these scores and you get the composite score. It's not a perfect transformation, but it certainly has more fairly distributed weight (pun intended) than what you have used here. -
aznjoka Thats my Opera, for those who have never tried Opera. It's an amazing piece of software, it does the job, and it does it better then most.Reply -
confish21 Interesting move to make this article. Well done! Don't waste your time on a vista run though... Im so close my release date. xDReply -
csbeer aznjokaThats my Opera, for those who have never tried Opera. It's an amazing piece of software, it does the job, and it does it better then most.Reply
XP can't run 9. Need to upgrade OS in order to get higher IE. -
mayankleoboy1 excellent review!Reply
some points:
1.A lot of corporates still use IE7. maybe you should include that too in your benchmarks
2.if you remove HTML5 (with and without H/W acceleration), i think Opera's victory margin will be quite huge.
3.Regarding smoothness, i beleive FF is quite poor in this. But the developers know about it and are very activle working on it. I thik FF13 will be the release when smoothness will improve. look at "Firefox Snappy".
4. i would like to have a subjective recommendation at the end of the article, something you subjectively felt was the best amongst all the browsers, even though it may be trailing in numbers. -
mayankleoboy1 Why did you use the AGP? I bet 99.99% of those Pentium4 era computers use the onboard Intel IGP.Reply
Also that would definitely disable the H/W acceleration of browsers.