Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 25, Firefox 19, And IE10

[adamovera]

Important versions of Chrome and Firefox were released since our last installment, and though we're ready to leave Windows 7 behind, IE10 brings us back for one more round. Naturally, our exhaustive suite of benchmarks undergoes a massive update as well.

Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 25, Firefox 19, And IE10 : Read more

 

[mayankleoboy1]

1. I am assuming that IE9 was included just to show improvements in IE10, and IE9 will be retired in the next WBGP

2. " Opera jumps on-board the Chromium bandwagon" is false. Opera is using Webkit rendering engine for rendering. We dont know what the Javascript engine and JIT compiler is going to be.

3. On page4, in "the average wait time" , you are taking the Geometric Mean. I think that using values less than 1 in a geometric mean is skewing the results. Can you take a Arithmetic Mean, and check please ?

4. Memory usage reporting of IE9 and IE10 is completely bogus. For some workloads, in TaskManager, IE10 is seen using about 300MB memory, while it is actually using around 3GB RAM ! :O . My 4GB RAM is completely used up, and disk-paging starts occuring.

5. I am completely mystified why quite a few browsers do better in JS benchmarks on Windows8 . I can understand getting better scores in WebGL or HW acceleration tests (because of potential better Dx) , but JavaScript execution does not use Dx. Any ideas ?

 

[alidan]

i wish we could get some older browsers in here to to see the difference newerones make.

i personally am still on ff10, memory is really the reason i use fire fox, along with chrome. i would love to see how older versions stack up to newer ones.

 

[bison88]

Opera is definitely lagging, but a I love it to death. Hope the switch to the Webkit platform gives them the motivation to start leading some of the boards again as it's still a great browser. The memory problem can get absurd sometimes and builds up fast. I have to say IE 10 has shocked me just toying around with it on Windows 7. The thing is smooth and fast, something I haven't seen since the days when it dethroned Netscape.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]1. I am assuming that IE9 was included just to show improvements in IE10, and IE9 will be retired in the next WBGP2. " Opera jumps on-board the Chromium bandwagon" is false. Opera is using Webkit rendering engine for rendering. We dont know what the Javascript engine and JIT compiler is going to be.3. On page4, in "the average wait time" , you are taking the Geometric Mean. I think that using values less than 1 in a geometric mean is skewing the results. Can you take a Arithmetic Mean, and check please ?4. Memory usage reporting of IE9 and IE10 is completely bogus. For some workloads, in TaskManager, IE10 is seen using about 300MB memory, while it is actually using around 3GB RAM ! . My 4GB RAM is completely used up, and disk-paging starts occuring.5. I am completely mystified why quite a few browsers do better in JS benchmarks on Windows8 . I can understand getting better scores in WebGL or HW acceleration tests (because of potential better Dx) , but JavaScript execution does not use Dx. Any ideas ?[/citation]
1. Yup
2. The press release mentioned "Chromium", so I'm assuming WebKit/V8.
3. Yes, you're right! The last timers went by milliseconds, so that wasn't an issue - the replacement charts should appear soon. Good catch!
4. It seems pretty reasonable to me, basically mirrors Chrome in this regard.
5. Nope

 

[caspy7]

@mayankleoboy1
#2, incorrect, they have said they're going with Chromium's V8.

@alidan
Mozilla saw the err of their ways and got after memory. The most recent version of Firefox should beat version 10 in both memory and performance. The last benchmarks I saw had it beating all the other browsers in memory usage as well. (In this article you can see a snapshot of this in the "40 tabs" graphic. Like many techies, this is more what my browsing looks like.)

 

[mayankleoboy1]

[citation][nom]adamovera[/nom]1. Yup2. The press release mentioned "Chromium", so I'm assuming WebKit/V8.3. Yes, you're right! The last timers went by milliseconds, so that wasn't an issue - the replacement charts should appear soon. Good catch!4. It seems pretty reasonable to me, basically mirrors Chrome in this regard.5. Nope[/citation]

#2 : I must have forgotten the release. Thanks for the correction.
#4 : I am not saying that IE10 uses excessive memory. I am saying that the total memory used by all the ieexplorer processes in the task manager is incorrect. For some image heavy pages, total memory usage of IE as reported by task manager is about 300MB, but total system memory usage gets around 3GB!. So if you close IE10, system memory goes from 90% full to 50% full.

 

[slomo4sho]

I currently use Firefox, Chrome, and IE 10. They each have their own advantages. Thanks for the write up. When can be expect the Android browser round up?

 

[xintox]

Really? I thought you were better than that at Toms.
The composite hardware acceleration scores is most likely the main reason why IE9/10 is so far behind Firefox and Chrome on performane. Yet, from what I can tell, this composite score is heavily influenced by the WebGL scores, which is exclusive to Chrome and Firefox.
In that respect, MS has at some point stated that they do not even wish to support WebGL, as it represents a significant security risk, as it gives the browser close access to the computer hardware.
Long story short, your methods of calculating performance scores heavily favors Chrome and Firefox as they are the only ones to implement support for WebGL.

Additionally, I wish you would make it more clear how you arrive at your composite scores and of course the final Performance Index. How do you add numbers that are so varied in nature, without some method of normalizing the numbers?

 

[srap]

@adamovera
I heard that Futuremark Peacekeeper is unreliable, it used to miscalculate it's own benchmarks and it's still a black box so it may still be buggy. Do you know anything specific about it?

 

[abbadon_34]

Nice to see IE9 AND IE10, as well as Win 7 AND Win8. But I am curious how the final scores were calculated, seeing how WebGL was only supported on 2 browsers, as well as how the other incompatible tests were scored. A 0 vs not including can make a good deal of difference.

 

[Anukul Bodile]

i prefer opera over chrome because of its intuitive interface

 

[Octiva]

CHROME STEAL ALL YOUR PROCCESOR POWER, use it to send infomation MOUNTVIEW IP

 

[Octiva]

Make test on packet in IDLE MODE , 1 tab open (empty)

 

[merikafyeah]

You call it a Grand Prix, but you use stock browsers. Not very exciting. You don't watch Formula 1 for stock cars. Tom's needs an "Enthusiast Grand Prix" with experts tweaking and modding each browser to fully maximize its potential, then have it compete against other tricked out browsers, the way it should be. No enthusiast uses an out-of-box vanilla browser.

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]merikafyeah[/nom]You call it a Grand Prix, but you use stock browsers. Not very exciting. You don't watch Formula 1 for stock cars. Tom's needs an "Enthusiast Grand Prix" with experts tweaking and modding each browser to fully maximize its potential, then have it compete against other tricked out browsers, the way it should be. No enthusiast uses an out-of-box vanilla browser.[/citation]
There is a reason why he uses the default install settings, and he explained this before in the former WBGP. The number of enthusiasts are far smaller than the 1-bit users, thus the default. Also, most enthusiasts actually know what is to be expected from the mods/tweaks, but normal users hardly know anything about browsers (if they even know the term: internet browser).

 

[belardo]

Wait a minute... firefox 19? It was little over a year ago that version 4.0 came out?! So its really version 4.18? right?

 

[belardo]

"Before Opera becomes yet another Webkit browser and we're down to the top three," What does that mean? That its taken off the list because it'll be a webkit? Chrome is already a webkit.

 

[Onus]

I use IE at work because I have to. I use FF (with ABP & NoScript) at home for everything except those few things (like some router config pages) that only work right in IE. I don't trust Chrome not to unnecessarily report my every move to Google, and what small speed "advantage" it may have is just not relevant, like someone bragging about getting 110 FPS in a game when I'm getting "only" 104.

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]"Before Opera becomes yet another Webkit browser and we're down to the top three," What does that mean? That its taken off the list because it'll be a webkit? Chrome is already a webkit.[/citation]
Because if it switches to webkit, all of it's test results will be identical to Chrome's, or it will hardly differ.

[citation][nom]caspy7[/nom]The most recent version of Firefox should beat version 10 in both memory and performance.[/citation]Firefox 15: HueyFix, details here.

@alidan: FF17 ESR would be more safe than FF10, and even better with memory.

Edit: I hate how it keeps deleting the links.

 

[belardo]

Oh... well, as long as Opera retains its UI/functions... it wouldn't bother me much. I use both Chrome and Opera. I prefer Opera, but use Chrome when a site doesnt like Opera.

Same for my Android phone.

 

[ET3D]

I'm impressed by the difference between Windows 7 and 8.

Also, FF is still the winner for me. The memory footprint with a lot of tabs open is pretty important for me. My wife's PC (3.5GB, Windows 7 32-bit) regularly bogs down when she opens a lot of tabs in IE. Have all the javascript and HTML 5 performance you want, when RAM runs out the entire computer slows down to a crawl.

 

[shahrooz]

I ran some of the tests on maxthon 4 and I got some good results it has a nice look too I'm going to test it for a while, anyone else has and experience with it?

 

[mayankleoboy1]

[citation][nom]xintox[/nom]Really? I thought you were better than that at Toms.The composite hardware acceleration scores is most likely the main reason why IE9/10 is so far behind Firefox and Chrome on performane. Yet, from what I can tell, this composite score is heavily influenced by the WebGL scores, which is exclusive to Chrome and Firefox.In that respect, MS has at some point stated that they do not even wish to support WebGL, as it represents a significant security risk, as it gives the browser close access to the computer hardware.Long story short, your methods of calculating performance scores heavily favors Chrome and Firefox as they are the only ones to implement support for WebGL.Additionally, I wish you would make it more clear how you arrive at your composite scores and of course the final Performance Index. How do you add numbers that are so varied in nature, without some method of normalizing the numbers?[/citation]

Well, both Chrome and Firefox are heavily committed to WebGL.
Reason : WebGL(which is a subset of OpenGL) is the hardware acceleration available in Linux and OSX.

 

[Philippe Leblanc]

It would have been nice to see some results with opera's HWA turned on. I can understand why you wouldn't count those results towards the final score since you are looking a stock browser configs. But the numbers make opera look so bad because there is no HWA by default. However, going into opera:config and turning HWA and WebGL on and run benchmarks just for reference would help opera's cause. They've made a lot of progress in that department and showing that would allow people to see how fast opera's current HWA implementation is. Just because the developers didn't deem it ready for primetime doesn't mean they shouldn't get a little credit for their work up to now. Just my 2 cents.