Chrome 27, Firefox 22, IE10, And Opera Next, Benchmarked

[Divyanshu Sah]

Whatever they say, chrome is the best for me

 

[Paradox Uncreated]

If you are looking for the lowest video-jitter, browsing youtube, or internet-animations generally, chromium is the best browser. Ofcourse on standard configs of linux, or stock windows, jitter is far from optimal, and the difference little. On an optimized system though, for timing accuray (low jitter) the difference is noticable. Probably more on older systems.

Look at my engineering page, for info and guides on low-jitter.

Peace BE With You.

 

[shahrooz]

Tom's please give Maxthon a try, I would like to see how it performs in comparison to other browsers.

 

[spotify95]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/1843-73-windows-slow-browsing-chrome-firefox-faster
It seems like there is a genuine issue with Windows 8 and Chrome (though on this report, Firefox and IE are also slower). However, there have been comments about Chrome's slowness in other Windows 8 grand prix's. I have put a long essay on another post about this issue, but until this issue is fixed between Chrome and W8 (either on Chrome's behalf or Windows 8 bugs) expect Firefox to win EVERY SINGLE WBGP ARTICLE.

 

[spotify95]

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/KV_TPd6Ehdg
It's either a W8 bug or a Chrome bug. After all Chrome is much faster in windows 7.

 

[mukeshsoni]

good

 

[DeathDaSquid]

Ha I read this right after switching from chrome to firefox not too long ago

 

[Stardance]

Apparently these benchmarks are just metrics that do not consider quality issues. Firefox might render pages faster, but faster is not better if the result is a mangled mess. Release notes for Firefox 22 disclose: "Firefox now follows display scaling options to render text larger on high-res displays"

This has been a disaster on my computer (resolution 1140 x 900) and on so many others that Firefox now has an official work-around. However, it does not resolve the problems which the "display-scaling options" cause. To begin with, the display-scaling *feature* is not optional. Contrary to the official workaround, the user cannot disable it and return to displaying content as it was prior to Firefox 22. Users can monkey with the scaling values but there is not enough granularity. The actual output "jumps" in multiples, and doesn't change gradually. The workaround is also implemented by editing "about:config" and not in the normal Tools > Options user interface.

Microsoft's "IE 10 for Windows 7" has exactly the same problem. The result is that for each and every page, I must waste time and effort adjusting the magnification or using other options in an attempt to make the page "fit" into the display area while retaining legibility of the text and the placement of graphics and other components relative to the text. I don't know which is worse, IE 10-4 Windows 7 or Firefox 22. Neither one is any good.

 

[mogster]

Page 4, second paragraph says: "We've combined the hot (newly-opened) and cold (re-opened) browser times into one chart each for single- and eight-tab starts." I'm pretty sure the hot and cold should be reversed.

 

[Kiraly]

Opera really shines on slow computers. At work we use some ancient boxes with 1GB of RAM, and I tested both Opera and Firefox. At 20 tabs, Firefox used a staggering 750MB of memory, slowing the entire system down to a crawl. Comparatively Opera used 350-400, with no penalties on the system (particularly if it was minimized).

On the other hand, on my much faster 8GB RAM home computer Opera is hogging a massive 1.5GB at 31 open tabs, so I've been looking into trying something else. Opera Next might be the answer.

 

[Kiraly]

Opera really shines on slow computers. At work we use some ancient boxes with 1GB of RAM, and I tested both Opera and Firefox. At 20 tabs, Firefox used a staggering 750MB of memory, slowing the entire system down to a crawl. Comparatively Opera used 350-400, with no penalties on the system (particularly if it was minimized).

On the other hand, on my much faster 8GB RAM home computer Opera is hogging a massive 1.5GB at 31 open tabs, so I've been looking into trying something else. Opera Next might be the answer.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Opera Next is just the dev branch of Opera. Opera current is now Blink-based, so is basically Chromium.

 

[mstrainjr]

Maxthon is the Ron Paul of web browsers. It's a great browser, and html5test.com rates it as being the most HTML5 compatible of all browsers. Yet you hardly ever see it in tests like this. The focus is ALWAYS Chrome, IE, and Firefox. I'm surprised they had Opera Next this time (and old Opera just for comparison).

 

[8086]

Were these tests performed using Opera 12 32bit or Opera 12 64bit. Also, was the 32 or 64bit version of IE used?

 

[8086]

Were these tests performed using Opera 12 32bit or Opera 12 64bit. Also, was the 32 or 64bit version of IE used?

 

[8086]

Were these tests performed using Opera 12 32bit or Opera 12 64bit. Also, was the 32 or 64bit version of IE used?

 

[adamovera]

Were these tests performed using Opera 12 32bit or Opera 12 64bit. Also, was the 32 or 64bit version of IE used?

32-bit, all around.

 

[Divyanshu Sah]

I will still continue using chrome. Also the version 22 update is very good.

 

[spotify95]

I am using Chrome and always will be. This article, especially on the page loads, is absolute rubbish.
You're skewing the results more towards the 40 tab load - how can Chrome easily take the page loads and still wind up a long way behind?!
That category might as well be another "startup time on how long to load 40 tabs".
And since virtually no one has 40 tabs open at once, that is absolutely rubbish and unmeaningful in every way possible.
Remember that in previous articles Chrome has also been a bit slower under windows 8, but not by that much of a degree. Even my windows 8 laptop, on a 1.7 GHz dual core, is faster than this article on loading pages both hot and cold on Chrome!
If the methodology isn't sorted out by the next WBGP I'm jacking in my Tom's Account. End of.

 

[spotify95]

Whatever they say, chrome is the best for me

Exactly. They're using such a high end computer, most people won't have such high specs. Chrome is really fast on older computers, but also the fastest on my Windows 7 machine.
There is a bug on the Windows 8 release....
Also, as previously stated, the page load methodology is absolute bull. Who on earth uses 40 tabs at a time?
And if you're timing startup time on 40 tabs (which is effectively what was being done) then shouldn't you be putting it with the START TIMES, instead of the PAGE LOADS?
These WBGP articles are starting to lose relevance, because of this. Also I will be closing my tom's account if something isn't done to ensure reliable, FAIR testing in categories (i.e. the weight for each test in a category).

 

[smeezekitty]

Who on earth uses 40 tabs at a time?

I have 54 tabs open and rarely less than 25.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

34 here, and that's only because I found an Opera extension to file away my reference/to-read tab collections. I've had upwards of a hundred at times.

 

[smeezekitty]

34 here, and that's only because I found an Opera extension to file away my reference/to-read tab collections. I've had upwards of a hundred at times.

That makes up the bulk of it. Things to view later and stuff for my reference.

 

[alexmoreira]

the problem with Firefox is its crazy number of crashes...

 

[belardo]

firefox is still the worst browser I have on my computer. Chrome is most compatible. Opera is the best to use, but has out-dated issues since (A) I'm still using the REAL Opera 12, not the Chrome-skinned garbage. If I wanted to use Chrome, I'd use chrome.

Now, if the Opera group can make Opera 15+ look and feel like OPERA - then I'll use that as my #1 browser.