Web Browser Grand Prix 2: Running The Linux Circuit

[SlipUp]

Opera still can't render pages properly, still can't print content properly, and we waste our time with senseless tests of imperceptible speed.

No problems with page display or printing in Opera here, I'm afraid. On the other hand, Chrome consistently crashes when I try to use Gmail... Yay.

 

[SlipUp]

Opera Turbo increases page load times on slow connections.On my 2Mbps connection the time in which Opera Turbo connects to its servers is the time in which Google loads in Firefox.

Opera Turbo makes page loading much faster on slow connections. 2Mbps? Why on earth would you want to use Opera Turbo on that? That's not what it was designed for.

I still don't see a point of this test especially as hardware gets better and better. Computer which runs on SSD or Raid SSD with 20Mb/s Internet Connection don't matter what browser you're on cause you can't see a damn difference.

The point is that performance matters, especially as applications become more complex.

 

[SlipUp]

Looks like if you have a system with less ram FF is your choice browser.

No, Opera beats everyone else at low RAM systems. Remember, Opera runs fine on mobile phones Firefox could never dream of running on. Firefox's lowest system requirements are miles higher than even Opera's recommended memory requirements for mobile phones!

Opera dynamically adapts memory use, unlike Firefox.

 

[JonnyDough]

Speed has never been as important as webpage functionality/stability. None are completely compatible with the Acid tests, and all have had major memory leaks at some point or other. Ever wonder why your PC eventually crashes if you leave a bunch of tabbed webpages up? It probably had nothing to do with viruses. Like others have said time and again, miniscule milliseconds don't make a darn bit of difference. It is IRRELEVANT.

 

[snurp85]

it would have been interesting to see how browser choice affects cpu usage while loading HTML5, java, and flash

 

[swyn01]

Regarding the memory section and comparing Windows to Linux: aren't all the Linux browsers 64bit and the Windows 7 32bit? Wouldn't this account for at least some of the discrepancies between the two operating systems (64bit applications should always use more memory for the same task)?

This probably should be mentioned in the memory usage section as a probable reason for such a large discrepancy between the two OSes and really is just a fact of life when using a 64 bit OS without 32 bit emulation (Windows 7 used was 64 bit, but the web browers are 32 bit. Linux does not have this ability and can only run 64 bit software).

 

[calc-yolatuh]

Thank you for this. Nice to finally get some Linux/Win7 numbers on the exact same machine.

 

[eodeo]

Very interesting article! Thank you for sharing.

 

[thejerk]

[citation][nom]swyn01[/nom]Regarding the memory section and comparing Windows to Linux: aren't all the Linux browsers 64bit and the Windows 7 32bit? Wouldn't this account for at least some of the discrepancies between the two operating systems (64bit applications should always use more memory for the same task)? This probably should be mentioned in the memory usage section as a probable reason for such a large discrepancy between the two OSes and really is just a fact of life when using a 64 bit OS without 32 bit emulation (Windows 7 used was 64 bit, but the web browers are 32 bit. Linux does not have this ability and can only run 64 bit software).[/citation]

No.

Sometimes.

You totally have it wrong.

 

[mayne92]

@SlipUp
Are you an Opera rep??? Just wondering...lol

 

[mayne92]

-adamovera
"This is not necessarily a reflection on the potential Web performance of the Linux OS, but more likely a reflection on how much time developers spend on Linux ports. "
I'm glad you mentioned this because it had already popped into my head when I began reading through the benchmarks. Other than that, I am glad to see some sort of statistics regarding this as I have wondered but obviously will not test such myself...great article!

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]arnweb[/nom]Opera Turbo feature, is not mentioned here, it can boost speed in real surf. And also when we open a closed tab in Opera it opens them instantly, that's why Opera holds memory for closed, tab.[/citation][citation][nom]Tamz_msc[/nom]Opera Turbo increases page load times on slow connections.On my 2Mbps connection the time in which Opera Turbo connects to its servers is the time in which Google loads in Firefox.[/citation]Actually it slows down fast connections. Not just "slow" ones. The only time I have used the Turbo feature is on my WinMo phone (Opera Mobile 10) - and even then I only usually enable it when I'm in the middle of nowhere with a poor connection. With a good 3G connection it's usually more trouble than it's worth.

 

[alextheblue]

I meant to add that Opera Mobile 10 is probably the best phone browser I've used so far, overall. Though none are perfect.

 

[yay]

With google moving away from windows i expect the linux and mac ports to be at least on par with the windows one.

 

[Guest]

Its not who is the fastest, but by how much. Your test results indicate that there is not a significantly human perceptable difference between the bunch. Thus, though you may declare one browser a winner, it is not an outright winner. They are all very capable, now that is what is important.

 

[amnotanoobie]

I dare thee to test reopening a tab and see how fast Chrome, FF and Opera reload a page. There's a reason to the madness of Opera's memory handling.

Around v9.5+ Opera was the king of memory management, and FF 2.5+ was leaking like hell. Now Opera decides to actually use the memory that a user has, and they get bashed for it. (This was based on a side-by-side use on the same machine, over the span of a few months).

 

[eddieroolz]

Personally I'd be concerned with the excessive RAM usage of Opera. For netbooks and older machines with less RAM (which many Ubuntu machines run with) Firefox seems to be best choice due to balance and good memory management.

 

[haplo602]

how about testing the browsers on a low ram system ? say 1GB ? I know this may be too restrictive, but bashing Opera for using free memory is like enforcing speed limits on F1 racing tracks ...

I'd realy be interested in the 40 tab and -39 tabs test on a 1GB ram system.

Basicaly I use Opera because:

1. it suits my style of web usage (I LOVE the tab recycle bin)
2. it behaves the same on all supported platforms
3. the core installation has all I need so I do not have to deal with addon installation

so take my bias towards Opera as it is

 

[Syndil]

Been using Opera since version 3.2. In response to people who claim it does not render properly:

Opera is fully W3C complaint. If a page does not render properly in Opera, it is due to a failure of the page designer, not Opera. That said, I have not encountered any reputable sites that do not display properly in Opera, other than those controlled directly by Microsoft. Which, I am sure, is deliberate.

Furthermore, all the talk of memory management is a non-issue. Opera does use more memory, but it does so for a purpose. Unless your machine is hurting for more RAM, it should not affect its performance. In other words, if the RAM issue is actually causing a noticeable performance problem (not just racking up high numbers in your task manager), fix your machine, don't blame the browser.

 

[belardo]

Okay... one more SPEED test is still needed...

Browsers running on the fruity computer... Apple's Mac. Of course IE8 is still missing, eh?

Opera is almost perfect... Printing is an issue - depending on the website, but otherwise Opera 10.1+ is vastly improved over anything in the past. Page loading standards is excellent.

 

[Ambictus]

Hmm... Weird results in the Firefox SunSpider bench. I'm running Linux Mint 9(Ubuntu 10.04 based) and got 1094ms in Firefox 3.6.6.

 

[hixbot]

[citation][nom]phgphd[/nom]Its not who is the fastest, but by how much. Your test results indicate that there is not a significantly human perceptable difference between the bunch. Thus, though you may declare one browser a winner, it is not an outright winner. They are all very capable, now that is what is important.[/citation]
Bingo. They are all very close to each other. We seem to be splitting hairs. Honestly I never seen a purpose to browser wars amongst different fanboys. They all deliver the content in a timely manner, big deal. Browsers are such a non factor to me I just don't get the fuss. I use them, they work, I really don't care which I use. I'm stuck on IE6 at work, it's pretty terrible but its effective enough for my tastes, with the exception of some sites that have moved on to more complicated designs (read: pointless design that are no more effective).
Toms is a perfect example of needless design complications that don't work well with all browsers, load slow, java script errors etc. I don't understand the need, just deliver text and graphics ffs.

 

[pinkfloydminnesota]

Last week we showed Opera TO BE??? the fastest ... c'mon man, how about

Last week we showed Opera IS!!! the fastest ....

The Elements of Style by EBWhite, small and to the point

 

[toyotabedzrock]

There is a an explanation for the Dromaeo results and also an explanation why Opera scores lower when accessing local files.

It was explained in a blog post by one of their employees.

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2010/07/13/toms-hardware **please read Toms Hardware.**

 

[DSpider]

Opera is my browser of choice for the last 3 years now. The Linux side of Opera bothered me a bit in the 9.xx series because the systray icon featured a gray background instead of transparent (probably to "fit in" with the Gnome default panel).

Also, I hear compiling from source yields better results, especially on a source-based Linux flavor (such as Gentoo). Could Firefox see an improvement if compiled for the specific CPU architecture found on the machine ?