Fastest Browser Test...Surprising

[jimmysmitty]

Why would i want to "push" Maxthon 3? Its free, im in no way affiliated with them, and was using opera and chrome up to this. These are the exact tests in "Tom's Hardware Browser Grand Prix" following the exact precautions. I can understand you might think its not as credible, but feel free to try a few of the tests yourself, all i did was write the numbers down. And have you ever used Maxthon 3? Well dont use reviews to judge something that takes 2 seconds to download, and you can just as easily get rid of it. Well maybe that last line sounded a bit salesman like, but seriously, the download takes about 2 seconds! :lol: For those who use firefox, I dont really recommend it as much, most of them would die without all the add-ons, but for those who use chrome, it seems to be everything chrome is famed to be, but better in those areas. Its faster, and the UI seems lighter to me. Im no salesman, try some of the tests out if you would like, very quick ill even give a few links:

http://sputnik.googlelabs.com/

http://acid3.acidtests.org/

http://html5test.com/

http://dromaeo.com/

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

Theres a few if you feel the need to validate any. I also used TSKMNG for memory consumption.

IE9 got pretty damn good results on Sputnik from Google:

5166 passed, 80 failed:

FF 4 beta 6 did good to, just a bit less than IE9 beta
4988 passed, 288 failed:

Acid 3:

IE9 gets 95/100 and FF 4 gets 97/100

I don't like html5test.com. It states IE9 has no support for MPEG-4 but one of the test from Microsoft uses a MPEG-4 video codec. Could be atrributed to the beta and will be different in the final release but its weird none the less.

Will run the others when I get some time.

 

[ares1214]

Zoron....
Have you tried Maxthon? If you don't need the supersonic speed of Maxthon 3, take Maxthon 2 for a spin. Try out all its tools and goodies. It's at www.maxthon.com, natch.
Ron White

Now now ron, lets not get too carried away. If there was a sonic boom every time i opened a new webpage, i dont think id use Maxthon! But you are right, M2 has some really nice features. About the same as IE for speed, but oh well.

@Jimmy, Opera didnt win, Max did for speed. But i agree. As i think ive told you, IE 9 doesnt work for me, so ill try to wait for non-beta status, and try again, or get windows 7. I did do a small test with FF4 Beta 4 i believe:

Lets see, for FF 4 B4, here are some numbers:

Sputnik Javascript Conformance: 268

Google V8 V5: 1251

Peacemaker: 4813

ACID 3.0: 97/100, 81ms

HTML5 Support: 190/300

Ill do more. Quite the upgrade over 3.6. Although so far, doesnt seem quite as fast as the others. I really do like the more appealing UI on it though.

Its looking better than FF 3.6 by a LOT, but it doesnt look like its going to fully bridge the gap in speed.

 

[ares1214]

IE9 got pretty damn good results on Sputnik from Google:

5166 passed, 80 failed:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1917/sputnikie9.jpg

FF 4 beta 6 did good to, just a bit less than IE9 beta
4988 passed, 288 failed:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4200/sputnikff4.jpg

Acid 3:

IE9 gets 95/100 and FF 4 gets 97/100

I don't like html5test.com. It states IE9 has no support for MPEG-4 but one of the test from Microsoft uses a MPEG-4 video codec. Could be atrributed to the beta and will be different in the final release but its weird none the less.

Will run the others when I get some time.

Wow, the sputnik for IE 9 ties Opera! And thats pretty good! Maxthon got low 100's i believe, so it did beat it in that. Acid it loses though. Windows 7 might contribute to this, as i got a different number for FF4 than you. Close though. Mind doing some speed tests on IE 9 for us? As i cant? It would be interesting to see where it falls, but you would have to do something like M3 or FF4 so we can see the difference on your computer...

 

[jimmysmitty]

Wow, the sputnik for IE 9 ties Opera! And thats pretty good! Maxthon got low 100's i believe, so it did beat it in that. Acid it loses though. Windows 7 might contribute to this, as i got a different number for FF4 than you. Close though. Mind doing some speed tests on IE 9 for us? As i cant? It would be interesting to see where it falls, but you would have to do something like M3 or FF4 so we can see the difference on your computer...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/240375-49-thoughts-beta

I did a few test there. Some from MS and some of the normal ones including SunSpider using IE9 Beta and FF 4 Beta 6. Here is SunSpider results:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/953/ie9test2.jpg

IE9 got 331.1ms vs FF 4 at 455.0ms. Both tested on a 25Mb/5Mb cable connection that I have. Normally its hard to say with cable but I have a direct connection to the tap instead of sharing one tap due to some unforseen circumstances. Benefit for me though.

I also want to do some of the other tests that you have listed but am at work on a T1 (1.5Mbps so slowwwwwwwwwwww) and a different machine. When I get time I will try a few more that you have to see what the results are for IE9 Beta and FF 4 Beta 6.

I think why your FF 4 is different in results is because you are using FF 4 Beta 4, I am using FF 4 Beta6.

 

[ares1214]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/240375-49-thoughts-beta

I did a few test there. Some from MS and some of the normal ones including SunSpider using IE9 Beta and FF 4 Beta 6. Here is SunSpider results:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/953/ie9test2.jpg

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/953/ie9test2.jpg

IE9 got 331.1ms vs FF 4 at 455.0ms. Both tested on a 25Mb/5Mb cable connection that I have. Normally its hard to say with cable but I have a direct connection to the tap instead of sharing one tap due to some unforseen circumstances. Benefit for me though.

I also want to do some of the other tests that you have listed but am at work on a T1 (1.5Mbps so slowwwwwwwwwwww) and a different machine. When I get time I will try a few more that you have to see what the results are for IE9 Beta and FF 4 Beta 6.

I think why your FF 4 is different in results is because you are using FF 4 Beta 4, I am using FF 4 Beta6.

Well now im using 6, but at the time it was 4. Think W7 hardware acceleration has anything to do with it?

 

[jimmysmitty]

^Hardware acceleration was disabled by default in all but FF 4 Beta 6 according to Mozzila due to bugs. But some of the test I have run that use hardware acceleration in FF 4 Beta 6 seem to run a lot slower than IE9 Beta.

Might be due to MS owning Direct X and knowing it a bit better.

Plus I am using Windows 7 x64 so it may be more dependant on your hardware compared to mine. But most test that test features like java script shouldn't depend on hardware at all since its something thats in the browser itself.

As long as the feature is supported, it should pass that test even if you have a very low end PC or a extreme end PC.

 

[SlipUp]

The Truth about Maxthon

I may be able to straighten out some of the confusion in other comments:

There is no confusion here. Maxhon is rather slow and cumbersome, and doesn't even have its own browser engine.

OBJECTIVITY

The test is clearly flawed, and not at all scientific.

Reviews And ijacks asks, "If Maxthon 3 is so good why don't we see rave reviews of it?" Fair question.

The answer is that Maxthon isn't really a browser, but just a "skin" on top of the engines of other browsers. It doesn't have any users either.

 

[SlipUp]

Its also nice to know that I have some backup in my testing:

http://it.tmcnet.com/news/2009/09/25/4390671.htm

That's a press release.

Also, it's referring to the V8 benchmark, which is an invalid test. People should use Peacekeeper (or, if you absolutely need to, SunSpider).

In any case, Maxthon has a history of deceptive marketing and bogus claims. Stay well clear of this browser.

 

[ares1214]

That's a press release.

Also, it's referring to the V8 benchmark, which is an invalid test. People should use Peacekeeper (or, if you absolutely need to, SunSpider).

In any case, Maxthon has a history of deceptive marketing and bogus claims. Stay well clear of this browser.

You do realize i tested Peacekeeper...and Sunspider? Hey, im not saying you have to believe me, troll as you will, but like i said before, if you dont believe me, try it for yourself. Im actually using Maxthon 3 until FF4 is out of beta, then i will re-acess the situation, but i actually really like it as a browser.

 

[RonWhite]

That's a press release.
.

In any case, Maxthon has a history of deceptive marketing and bogus claims. Stay well clear of this browser.

Say, Slipup, I defy you to cite one--just one--example of deceptive marketing or a bogus claim. You can't, can you? I know you can't because Maxthon is barely marketed at all. Except for a brief flurry of ads several years ago, Maxthon spends nothing on ads. You comment is legally slanderous, but not worth pursuing.

Your statements “Maxhon is rather slow and cumbersome, and doesn't even have its own browser engine" and “... Maxthon isn't really a browser, but just a 'skin' on top of the engines of other browsers. It doesn't have any users either" are testaments to the fact you have never run Maxthon and to your ignorance in general.

First, as the many tests show, Maxthon 3 is either the fastest or just behind the fastest browsers. "Cumbersome?" Well, that's a criticism that's safe to make because no one knows what you mean by it.

Second, you don't know what goes into a browser and you don't know what a skin is. There is no such thing as a "browser engine." What you're probably referring to is a "rendering engine," which is responsible for translating a web page's code into the text, graphics and layout you see on screen. Maxthon 2 uses a modified version of the Trident rendering engine, which is also used by Internet Explorer, Avant Browser, and nearly a dozen other browsers. (Check Wikipedia.) The rendering engine is not the browser. In fact, in Maxthon 2, the Trident engine accounts for only about a third of the code. Maxthon 3 uses both Trident and WebKit, the same rendering engine used by Chrome and Safari, and which Apple developed from a rendering engine that originated with K-meleon. By your reasoning, Chrome and Safari are skins on top of K-meleon. Or would it be that Chrome is riding on Safari and Safari is riding on Chrome?

Third, if we're talking about the Windows world--and that's where all these tests are taking place--Maxthon has more users than Safari for Windows. (Check NetApplications' market shares of browser versions.)

Of course, you're free to have you own opinions. You just shouldn't pretend that they are facts.

ron

 

[ares1214]

Say, Slipup, I defy you to cite one--just one--example of deceptive marketing or a bogus claim. You can't, can you? I know you can't because Maxthon is barely marketed at all. Except for a brief flurry of ads several years ago, Maxthon spends nothing on ads. You comment is legally slanderous, but not worth pursuing.

Your statements “Maxhon is rather slow and cumbersome, and doesn't even have its own browser engine" and “... Maxthon isn't really a browser, but just a 'skin' on top of the engines of other browsers. It doesn't have any users either" are testaments to the fact you have never run Maxthon and to your ignorance in general.

First, as the many tests show, Maxthon 3 is either the fastest or just behind the fastest browsers. "Cumbersome?" Well, that's a criticism that's safe to make because no one knows what you mean by it.

Second, you don't know what goes into a browser and you don't know what a skin is. There is no such thing as a "browser engine." What you're probably referring to is a "rendering engine," which is responsible for translating a web page's code into the text, graphics and layout you see on screen. Maxthon 2 uses a modified version of the Trident rendering engine, which is also used by Internet Explorer, Avant Browser, and nearly a dozen other browsers. (Check Wikipedia.) The rendering engine is not the browser. In fact, in Maxthon 2, the Trident engine accounts for only about a third of the code. Maxthon 3 uses both Trident and WebKit, the same rendering engine used by Chrome and Safari, and which Apple developed from a rendering engine that originated with K-meleon. By your reasoning, Chrome and Safari are skins on top of K-meleon. Or would it be that Chrome is riding on Safari and Safari is riding on Chrome?

Third, if we're talking about the Windows world--and that's where all these tests are taking place--Maxthon has more users than Safari for Windows. (Check NetApplications' market shares of browser versions.)

Of course, you're free to have you own opinions. You just shouldn't pretend that they are facts.

ron

Maxthon has more users than Safari for Windows? Not saying much considering Safari is obviously meant for Mac, but still surprising. I agree with this. Ive never even seen a Maxthon ad. In fact, ive only seen a lot of Chrome ads, some IE9 ads, and not much else. Your also right with the rendering engine, by this logic Chrome is just a skin, Safari is just a skin, and so on. Maxthon 2 could have been argued as cumbersome, if he means it in a not very sleek UI type meaning. It isnt sleek at all. However it has more buttons and features than a person could possibly need. Not bad, but not good either. Maxthon 3 on the other hand has a Chrome-ness sleek minimized UI feel. Miss some M2 features, but its actually pretty nice. I like the feel a lot. I will use it until IE9 goes real, or i get W7, as IE9 beta wont work with me, FF4 isnt terribly great when it doesnt support most of the things that make FF so good, and i find Maxthon 3 to just be a better chrome. Thats just me, feel free to test them out.

 

[RonWhite]

Maxthon has more users than Safari for Windows? Not saying much considering Safari is obviously meant for Mac, but still surprising. I agree with this. Ive never even seen a Maxthon ad. In fact, ive only seen a lot of Chrome ads, some IE9 ads, and not much else. Your also right with the rendering engine, by this logic Chrome is just a skin, Safari is just a skin, and so on. Maxthon 2 could have been argued as cumbersome, if he means it in a not very sleek UI type meaning. It isnt sleek at all. However it has more buttons and features than a person could possibly need. Not bad, but not good either. Maxthon 3 on the other hand has a Chrome-ness sleek minimized UI feel. Miss some M2 features, but its actually pretty nice. I like the feel a lot. I will use it until IE9 goes real, or i get W7, as IE9 beta wont work with me, FF4 isnt terribly great when it doesnt support most of the things that make FF so good, and i find Maxthon 3 to just be a better chrome. Thats just me, feel free to test them out.

And keep your eye on Maxthon 3. I, too, miss some of those buttons and features from Maxthon 2. But the good news is that the best and most popular of them are being imported to Max 3, even as I write thils note. If it keeps its speed, sleekness, and gets the really useful functions of Max 2, it will be hard to beat no matter what your standards are.

ron

 

[jn2010]

I like direct dictionary in chrome (double click a word, and chrome will give you its description). how to add dictionary in maxthon 3?

jn

 

[kalavani]

Any one can easily check an internet speed of browsers at Scanmyspeed.com ..