IE9 is Most Energy Efficient Browser, So Says MS

Status
Not open for further replies.

HDmac

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2008
58
0
18,630
0
Its obviously that it loads web pages so slowly that the wi-fi card is primarily inactive, thus saving battery life.
 

tentaxlbunga

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2010
17
0
18,510
0
browsing with IE will put you computer to sleep mode oftenly, that why it safe more energy than the competitor.
Of course.. most of the time, you will only see black screen on your monitor.
 

cjl

Splendid
Clearly, HDmac and tentaxlbunga haven't used IE9. It's actually quite a decent browser. That having been said, I'll stick with FF4 - I've found FF4 with noscript has an amazingly good battery life due to the elimination of all unnecessary flash.
 

Benihana

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2009
330
0
18,780
0
That's not bad, this means that I can take a 10 minute hit (out of 3 hours and 45 minutes) of browsing time to use FF and enjoy my browsing experience. Couple that with NoScript (as cjl mentioned) and I'll be computing longer! :)
 

opmopadop

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2009
277
0
18,780
0
That last table showing wattage consumed while sitting on certain sites makes absolutely no sense at all. How can "IE9 come out on top of the pack" if it has the highest "W" for two, and middle of the pack for the other two...

I know Im missing something, I just cant figure out watt[sic]?
 

RolandVet

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
13
0
18,510
0
As opmopadop said the table shows IE9 as the greatest power consumer.

If you follow the link to the source you'll see completely different results in which IE9 does have the lowest power consumption.
 

RolandVet

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
13
0
18,510
0
Further more, the table show the power consumption of Opera 11 in galactic, whilst Opera does not support Galactic.

Tom's hardware, I am disappoint!
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
IE9 is a huge improvement over the IE8, it's almost like it's two differnt browsers with the same interface. It would seem microsoft have rewriten most of the code from scrach and done a good jobb while at it!

Im considering to switch once the IE9 plugins starts to show up!
 

fafkac

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
the table looks like it was performed on different notebooks, how in the world can IE got longest battery life when it draw far more than other browsers, that is nonsense
 

enzo matrix

Splendid
Wait WTF. According to the tests, Firefox has the system consuming LESS power in all tests but galactic but they claim that ie will have 10 minutes more battery life? WTF? Am I missing something?
And chrome is way better than ie in half the tests and comes close in one, only falling really behind in one test, so why the 1 hour difference?
 

phatbuddha79

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2009
228
0
18,690
1
Enzo said what was on my mind. It doesn't make any sense to a program to use less energy but have lesser battery life? Only way that's possible is if they were tested on different hardware which kind of defeats the purpose...
 

hoofhearted

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
1,020
0
19,280
0
Hardware is what I care more about when it comes to power and savings. When it comes to software though, proving you have the most power saving software seems like a justifcation for why yours is the slowest.
 

saaiello

Splendid
[citation][nom]Enzo Matrix[/nom]Why isn't tom's responding with their own tests to verify these claims?[/citation]
Toms does not do any of their own testing these days. Its a copy and paste site and its sad to see Tom's like this.
 

Bolbi

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2009
733
0
19,060
43
These results are probably due to the complete (or nearly complete) hardware acceleration in Firefox 4 and IE9. The GPU is much more energy-efficient than the CPU used by the other three browsers in performing rendering tasks like those used in the tests.
 

amdfangirl

Splendid
Ambassador
[citation][nom]fafkac[/nom]the table looks like it was performed on different notebooks, how in the world can IE got longest battery life when it draw far more than other browsers, that is nonsense[/citation]

Anti-reverse-non-kinda-maybe physics, mate.
 

amdfangirl

Splendid
Ambassador
[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]Clearly, HDmac and tentaxlbunga haven't used IE9. It's actually quite a decent browser. That having been said, I'll stick with FF4 - I've found FF4 with noscript has an amazingly good battery life due to the elimination of all unnecessary flash.[/citation]

I find flash isn't too bad at consuming power if you have GPU acceleration. It used to kill my Macbook's battery, now it just eats slowly at my x120e battery (GPU acceleration).
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
617
0
18,980
0
It's obvious a test ran and published by MS would never spot different results. This is an advert and adverts are at least biased.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1
So if you look at the table in this article, then IE is beaten by Firefox for every test except Galactic. Interesting. Perhaps MS is expecting everyone to take their word for it.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
[citation][nom]malmental[/nom]this is just MS firing back at the report earlier last week saying that IE9 can't save MS in the browser market..[/citation]

And those reports are correct. MS has dropped the ball on IE for soo long that 3rd party browsers like FireFox, Opera, Chrome, have all surpassed IE in just about everything. Going to any of those 3rd party browsers is like going from a Ford Focus with IE to a Mustang GT 5.0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS