Browsers speed compared

[CougTek]

An article linked from 2CPU.com led me to test the four Internet browsers I have on my main system using SunSpider JavaScript benchmark.

The results are shown below :

Google Chrome 0.3.154.9 : 1108.6ms ±1.9%
Opera 9.62 : 3095.8ms ±0.6%
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 : 2419.6ms ±1.0%
Internet Exasperor 7 : 20449.3ms ±2.1%

The number for IE7 is not a typo. It really is that bad. I'm using Vista Business SP1 64bit with all the latest patch in date of November 1st 2008. The hardware details of my modest coputer are listed in my signature.

Also, regarding the compliance of the various browser to the Internet standards, here are their results for the Acid3 test :

Google Chrome : 79%
Opera 9.62 : 85%
Mozilla Firefox : 71%
Microsoft's browser moquery, version 7 : 12%

Actually, the test page is unreadable on IE7, but the only number that changes stops at 12, so that must be its score.

Chrome wins in my book, since it has the best combination of speed (great advantage over all the others) and compliance of the bunch. Opera and Mozilla Firefox are competitive too. IE7, well...IE7 ; the numbers speak by themselves.

I'll add a few others soon, like Seamonkey 1.1.2, Seamonkey 2.0 alpha 1, Minefield 11.01.2008. I won't install IE8 on this system. I know Safari won't do well, at least in the SunSpider benchmark.

 

[mubs]

Google Chrome 0.3.154.9 : 1108.6ms ±1.9%
Opera 9.62 : 3095.8ms ±0.6%
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 : 2419.6ms ±1.0%
Internet Exasperor 7 : 20449.3ms ±2.1%

The number for IE7 is not a typo. It really is that bad.

I didn't really understand your comment at first. Looking closely, I realized the number for IE7 was 5 digits, not 4! Is it really that bad? Sheesh.

 

[CougTek]

SeaMonkey 1.1.2 : 10798.0ms ±0.2%, Acid3 test : 53%
SeaMonkey 2.0 Alpha 1 : 2314.8ms ±0.8%, Acid3 test : 87%
Minefield 11.01.2008 : 1178.0ms ±4.9%, Acid3 test : 93%

The next version of Firefox will be quite interesting (Minefiled is the daily build of Firefox).

 

[LiamC]

Minefield is interesting, but along with Chrome it suffers from beta speed. It's easy to make a beta version fast because it doesn't do any of the error checking that a hardened release version has to.

Check out Safari

 

[CougTek]

Safari 3.1.2 : 2995.8ms ± 0.5%, Acid3 test 75%

I'm surprised it beats Opera in the speed test.

 

[udaman]

A faster internet connection renders all of these browser speeds tests moot, differences are minimal. Kind of like comparing 7.2k laptop drives...replace with fast SSD if you want to see a significant improvement (though again, what you feel is 'significant' is in the eye of the beholder).


Better analysis via this blog:

http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/

We see a very different picture here. WebKit-based engines are absolutely ahead - but Chrome is lagging behind the latest release of Safari. And while there is a small speed improvement while using TraceMonkey, over regular Firefox, the full potential won't be unlocked until tracing can be performed over DOM structures (which it is currently incapable of - may not be ready until Firefox 3.2 or so).
One thing is clear, though: The game of JavaScript Performance leapfrog is continuing. With another JavaScript engine in the mix that rapid iteration will only have to increase - which is simply fantastic for end users and application developers.
Update: I've posted results for Safari 4.0 wherever I could.
Posted: September 3rd, 2008 · Tags: javascript, performance

 

[CougTek]

UPDATE

Sunspider Javascript benchmark

Mozilla Firefox 3.5 : 1076.2ms
Google Chrome 3.0.190.4 : 629.6ms
Safari 4 : 656.0ms
Opera 10 beta : 2817.8ms
Internet Explorer 8 : 5135.8ms

Same system as before, but the CPU is no longer overclocked (operates at 2.67GHz) and the OS is Windows 7 RC 64 bits.

I cannot access Acid3 test website. There must be too much trafic on it.

 

[LiamC]

Downloaded FF 3.5 this morning. The sites I regularly visit mustn't use a lot of JS, because I didn't notice much of anything performance wise. Which is a bit strange because I thought that www.news.com.au was a JS hog...

 

[Mercutio]

Those javascript tests tend to be synthetic benchmarks. There may be no real-world difference most of the time.

 

[MaxBurn]

I got this below but I haven't seen any real improvement in Firefox 3.5 either. I am fairly sure this machine is just waiting on the stuff to come through that DSL pipe. This intrests me as we are working with SiteScan/WebCtrl which is heavily java intensive in the browser, but unfortunately only supports IE.

These are under Windows 7 eval 7100
My Java version is Version 6 Update 13, one old according to java.com

============================================
RESULTS for firefox 3.5-------991.4ms +/- 0.1%
RESULTS for IE8-------------4476.0ms +/- 0.6%
RESULTS for IE8 second try--4449.2ms +/- 0.4%
============================================


Q9550 Quad 2.83 12MB Cache, Supermicro C2SBA+II, 4GB PNY, BFG 260 OC2, 300GB Raptor for OS, 2x750GB Seagate RAID1 storage, 1TB Samsung F1 for workspace and VM's, LG SATA BD/HD-DVD DVD-RW GGC-H20L, Pioneer DVR-108, Antec P180, Seasonic SS-550HT, X-Fi Titanium, Samsung LN32-A550 32" monitor and LG 47LH40 47" monitor.

 

[MaxBurn]

After a java update:
============================================
RESULTS for firefox 3.5-------984.4ms +/- 1.9%
RESULTS for IE8-------------4610.8ms +/- 0.7%
============================================

 

[MaxBurn]

deleted double

 

[timwhit]

I got this below but I haven't seen any real improvement in Firefox 3.5 either. I am fairly sure this machine is just waiting on the stuff to come through that DSL pipe. This intrests me as we are working with SiteScan/WebCtrl which is heavily java intensive in the browser, but unfortunately only supports IE.

These are under Windows 7 eval 7100
My Java version is Version 6 Update 13, one old according to java.com

============================================
RESULTS for firefox 3.5-------991.4ms +/- 0.1%
RESULTS for IE8-------------4476.0ms +/- 0.6%
RESULTS for IE8 second try--4449.2ms +/- 0.4%
============================================


Q9550 Quad 2.83 12MB Cache, Supermicro C2SBA+II, 4GB PNY, BFG 260 OC2, 300GB Raptor for OS, 2x750GB Seagate RAID1 storage, 1TB Samsung F1 for workspace and VM's, LG SATA BD/HD-DVD DVD-RW GGC-H20L, Pioneer DVR-108, Antec P180, Seasonic SS-550HT, X-Fi Titanium, Samsung LN32-A550 32" monitor and LG 47LH40 47" monitor.

Java and JavaScript are two different things. Updating the version of Java you are running won't affect JavaScript in a browser.

 

[MaxBurn]

Guess I am showing my ignorance then. I know our web application calls to the java on the machine and there are a host of features that don't work if you don't have java installed. Eh, I don't do the coding for this stuff.

 

[timwhit]

You may be referring to a Java Applet. This works similarly to how flash works in a browser. Your browser uses a plug-in to run code on your machine's Java Virtual Machine (JVM). A plug-in's performance is not really affected by the browser itself as the plug-in usually spawns another process to run the applet, flash, etc.

JavaScript (ECMAScript) runs directly in a browser and is used for a variety of things, such as DOM manipulation, asynchronous XML requests, form validation, opening pop-ups. JavaScript performance is therefore directly related to how fast a browser can parse and evaluate the script.

Here are some example Java Applets.

For examples of Javascript look at Gmail which makes heavy use of DOM manipulation and Ajax. Almost every website uses some JavaScript.

 

[Handruin]

I really like the video integration with HTML 5.

 

[Mercutio]

Now, if only every video site in the world would switch to HTML5 native video objects so we can collectively tell Adobe to die in a fire, that would be swell.

 

[Handruin]

Last night I even found a demo page on youtube showing the HTML 5 video interface recreated. That gives me some hope. I also love that you can right click and Save Video As...

 

[Mercutio]

There's an Extension called Video Downloadhelper that's really useful for that.

Also, I tell Adobe to die in a fire all the time anyway. I just waiting on the rest of the internet to join me.

 

[P5-133XL]

I've been playing around with Google Chrome. It is noticeably faster than any other browser that I've tried. It does what is needed for a basic browser, but does nothing fancy nor are there any addons to improve capabilities.

 

[Mercutio]

Here's the nightly build directory for Chromium, a version of Chrome with extension support.

 

[Tannin]

Err .... why are we comparing browsers using a Javascript benchmark? Is there not only a very limited point in a benchmark that, apparently, only compares performance in a small subset of the actual tasks a browser is called on to perform?

With rare exceptions, Javascript is an evil blight that serves little or no useful purpose, and always runs vastly slower and less gracefully that CSS and HTML backed, if need be, by appropriate server-side scripting support. Surely benchmarking and optimising for Javascript only encourages the bastards to write even more of the crap.

 

[timwhit]

For Web-based applications JavaScript allows many things that are not possible with a strict HTTP request-response model. If you have a page that has 10 different components on it and I click a button to remove or refresh one of the components why would I want to have to ask the server for the entire page again? With Ajax I can refresh that one component and then move data back and forth asynchronously.

Why would I want to do this?
- Speed: move a fraction of the data in an asynch response, no waiting for the browser to render an entire page
- Server performance - If the server has to check to see that all 10 components' data has changed this means more app server cycles are needed, more DB server cycles, etc.
- Better User Experience - Less waiting, more like a desktop application
- Bandwidth - Why move more data than necessary?

No one is forcing you to develop heavily in JavaScript and it's used a lot of places where straight HTML/CSS would do a better job. For example, using JS for dropdown/flyout navigation is plain lazy. But, for asynchronous operations done the right way there is no substitution.

I'd write more, but it's time to go home and eat.

 

[Mercutio]

There are some very heavily used web sites that do a lot of heavy lifting with Javascript. A Yahoo mail or Google Maps session is probably something a browser developer would find it worthwhile to optimize.

 

[LunarMist]

I figure that connection or server speed is the main issue on the internet. (Maybe it would be different if I had a really fast connection, but we did get an upgrade this year.) If a site takes forever to load I click elsewhere. Most of the shopping sites and other sites I visit are fairly simple on the front page and load quickly. It's the marketing type of sites or home-grown sites that often implement all that fancy crap to be avoided.

 

[Tannin]

Sorry, I got to the bit where you wrote "better user experience" in the context of talking about Javascript when my eyes glazed over and my brain exploded.

 

[Handruin]

An alternative to javascript would be to include these type of user experience features into the HTML standard. I'm not suggesting it's simple to create and implement, but it would be a step towards a true web 2.0 rather than this marketing crap people claim to be a web 2.0.

 

[timwhit]

There are some additions to HTML5 related to scripting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5#New_APIs

 

[Handruin]

That's kind of neat. Offline storage database and a drag and drop API (among others). Thanks for the link, that's good info.

 

[LunarMist]

Sorry, I got to the bit where you wrote "better user experience" in the context of talking about Javascript when my eyes glazed over and my brain exploded.

:bglaugh:

 

[ddrueding]

Sorry, I got to the bit where you wrote "better user experience" in the context of talking about Javascript when my eyes glazed over and my brain exploded.

You are a stick in the mud sometimes. How would you write a Google Apps equivalent?

 

[Tannin]

What's a Google App?

 

[ddrueding]

It is an online office suite. E-mail/contacts/calendar, documents, spreadsheets, presentations all online as webpages. Including the storing of documents. Whatever machine you are using doesn't need to have your data or any apps (other than a decent browser) and you can do all your office work. I have complete access to all of it from my BlackBerry, netbook, desktop, or random machine at some friends house. They even have an offline mode, so you can work without being connected and then sync later.

Only downside: Google can see pretty much everything. But I'm not that interesting.

 

[Tannin]

Sorry, Dave, I was asking tongue-in-cheek. I lost interest in spreadsheets around about the time they perfected Quatro Pro, which was ... er ... 1992 I think. Since that time, there has been nothing - and I mean nothing brought to the table by any company that is particularly worth having. And I don't know that I ever had much of an interest in word processing. None of the WP products on the market have a quarter of the ease of use that a good programmer's text editor has. If I want to write a letter or an essay, or an illustrated document, I do it in HTML and use my browser to print it. Much easier than buggerising about with Word and it's madhouse "helpfulness" that actually just drives people spare because they can't figure out (for example) how to tell it to stop indenting the damn paragraph.

Calendars/to-do lists don't work at all for me, never have. Such a high proportion of my workload is unpredictable and turns up completely unexpectedly that scheduling things just doesnt make sense. A schedule only works if you have some hope of keeping to it at least some of the time. Presentations software is all crap: I have never, ever used it for any purpose - and yes, I make presentations all the time. I use PMView and, sometimes, a browser if I need text as well as images.

I'm not saying that Google Apps are useless, just that they are useless to me. If I have my notebook, I have everything I need, and if I don't have my notebook, then no software/storage suite of any description is really of much use to me. Google won't have enough storage available to me at a sensible speed at any time within my lifetime. (It would be OK in the city, but I tend not to be in a city.) As I discovered the other week, not having the notebook is a major problem. I've now dealt with that by having a little toy one (an ASUS netbook) in reserve.

I'm not a stick-in-the-mud. I'm an aggressive doubter. I make it a rule to strongly doubt the benefit of any product as hard as I can until I either (a) demonstrate that it's useless, and/or no improvement on whatever was used for that purpose in the past, or (b) become a convert and adopt it wholeheartedly. (a) happens a lot more often than (b), of course, because 95% of new products are crap. And when you do find a category (b) product, it's a bloody good one. The most valuable recent product to fit this category is probably semi-skim long-life milk.

 

[ddrueding]

I figured as much, so my response was in the same vein (I actually copy/pasted it from something I send o the new users.)

 

[Handruin]

The google calendar works well for me. I've not found a need for any of the other tools they offer.

Tannin, have you ever tried a desktop publishing tool like Quarkxpress for managing your word processing needs? I know it might seem overkill given it's intended purpose is for desktop publishing, but I found that tool to be so much easier/better at creating a document compared to Word. I know you said you don't have much interest, but if you ever needed to create something and you don't want to write HTML, it might be a nice change.

I haven't found a category (b) product in a long time.

 

[CougTek]

I would try Quarkxpress, but I'm not ready to spend 800U$ just for a trial.

 

[Handruin]

Don't cheap out on a good product.

 

[sechs]

People still use Quark?

Then again, people still use PageMaker, and that is really a dead product....

 

[Handruin]

Yep. Graphic design and publishing places still use Quark. What else is out there?