Firefox 3 Performance Gets a Boost, Opera Still Champ
Posted by Steven Parker via Neowin Forums on 28 February 2008 - 15:55 · 96 comments & 40358 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Poll: What is your primary browser at the moment?
- Firefox 3 Beta 3 or a "Nightly" Build
47Firefox 2.0.0.12
112Opera 9.5 Beta
42Safari 3.0.4 Beta
9Internet Explorer 7
65Total votes: 278
- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by EduardValencia on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:13
- lol
-
(9 replies)
#2 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:15
- How is Opera still champ if it's not the fastest? I guess they mean until Firefox 3 is out of beta?
-
#2.2 Posted by Davebo on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:19
- I'm wondering that myself....
Steven Parker? It's your title - explain it (especially since you haven't tested the build discussed in the article.) -
#2.3 Posted by Davebo on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:21
- (Neobond said @ #2.1)You guessed it!
Riiiight. However, the flaw in your argument is that the version of Opera listed is beta as well. -
#2.4 Posted by Neobond on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:23
- OK, Opera (even though it is also a beta) is still the main stream fastest browser, it is faster than Firefox 3 Beta 3 isn't it? Therfore it is still Champion of the world
Davebo: So is Firefox 3 Beta 3 which is SLOWER! -
#2.5 Posted by +Kushan on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:44
- (Neobond said @ #2.4)OK, Opera (even though it is also a beta) is still the main stream fastest browser, it is faster than Firefox 3 Beta 3 isn't it? Therfore it is still Champion of the world </echo>
Davebo: So is Firefox 3 Beta 3 which is SLOWER!
You could at least point out that the improvements are in Firefox 3 beta 4, which IS(or will be when it's released in the coming days) the fastest of the lot. -
#2.6 Posted by Neobond on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:45
- Tell it to the author
-
#2.7 Posted by +shakey_snake on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:50
- Neobond, you might consider adding "javascript" to the title somewhere, since this has nothing to do with HTML or css or mathML or any other important benchmark.
I mean as huge of a fan as I am of Fx, Krestal probably still kicks Gecko's ass in most of the benchmarks. -
#2.8 Posted by +Kushan on 28 Feb 2008 - 23:57
- (shakey_snake said @ #2.7)Neobond, you might consider adding "javascript" to the title somewhere, since this has nothing to do with HTML or css or mathML or any other important benchmark.
I mean as huge of a fan as I am of Fx, Krestal probably still kicks Gecko's ass in most of the benchmarks.
I thought they dumped Gecko for a different rendering engine in FF3? -
#2.9 Posted by RyanVM on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:24
- (Kushan said @ #2.
I thought they dumped Gecko for a different rendering engine in FF3?Uh, no. Gecko has had some massive upgrades, but it's still humming along at version 1.9 (Gecko 1.8.1 is what Fx2 is running).
Last edited by RyanVM on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:31
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by xinary on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:16
- Confusing article, maybe you could atleast put the list in order, unless of course you mean firefox nightly is fastest? Is this an opera fan boy post, am i even here? I am so confused.
-
#3.2 Posted by +Aq3e on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:43
- (Neobond said @ #3.1)Don't shoot the messenger!
Messenger is Blasphemous , Kick the messenger! -
#3.3 Posted by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:18
- (xinary said @ #1)Confusing article, maybe you could atleast put the list in order, unless of course you mean firefox nightly is fastest? Is this an opera fan boy post, am i even here? I am so confused.
My personal opinion (last line) is in the article.
"... however I haven't compiled the latest nightly build to check it's performance. My results elaborate that Opera champs over Firefox 3 Beta 3."
I haven't tested the Nigthly Build. I tested Firefox Beta 3, which is exactly reflected in the list Cybernet published. Some people in the comments claim that the Nightly Build does outperforms Opera, but I don't have a compiled version of the nightly build to test it.
And I preffer Firefox over Opera, but I tried to be neutral as possible.
EDIT: The article's title is wrong...
Last edited by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:28
-
#4 Posted by stifler6478 on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:22
- What's kind of amusing is that I get an ad for a "Flock" web browser that is apparently "designed for Today's Web" just to the right of this article
-Spenser
-
(4 replies)
#5 Posted by xiphi on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:27
- How is Opera still champ if Firefox 3 comes out on top?
-
#5.1 Posted by bangbang023 on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:29
- You can't really count nightly builds or an unofficially optimized nightly build as being full time products. So much can change night to night that it's not an accurate representation and is best used only for reference purposes.
-
#5.2 Posted by supernova_00 on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:19
- (bangbang023 said @ #5.1)You can't really count nightly builds or an unofficially optimized nightly build as being full time products. So much can change night to night that it's not an accurate representation and is best used only for reference purposes.It is not unofficial, it is a default optimization since two days ago
-
#5.3 Posted by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:13
- (xiphi said @ #1)How is Opera still champ if Firefox 3 comes out on top?
The last sentence was my personal opinion. I did the test with Opera and Firefox 3 Beta 3, and Opera won by speed. However, the author of the article claims that Firefox 3 Nightly build (Pre Beta 4) is faster than any other browser in that list.
I guess the news title is missleading.
Last edited by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:25 -
#5.4 Posted by Cryton on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:26
- Azmodan's original post makes it quite obvious that the last sentence is his opinion. But Steven Parker's quotation of the CyberNet results directly followed by Azmodan opinion confuses the issue, and when combined with a stupid article title, confusion reigns supreme!
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by
KoDeXeRo on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:32
- hmmmm, this is what i got for my IE 7 test. LOL
Total: 39446.4ms +/- 7.4% -
#6.1 Posted by chicken-royal on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:29
- I've just tested Firefox 2.0.0.12 and got this result
Total: 10959.8ms +/- 2.0% [results]
then I tested Internet Explorer 7 and got this result
Total: 20256.4ms +/- 2.1% [results]
Both on same PC, WinXP etc.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by Dakkaroth on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:32
- Well, unfortunately I never chose which browser I wanted based on how fast it goes. I first moved to Firefox for the security and got hooked by the features.
-
#7.1 Posted by LipSmacker on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:06
- (Dakkaroth said @ #7)Well,
unfortunatelyI never chose which browser I wanted based on how fast it goes. I first moved to Firefox for the security and got hooked by the features.
I'm hooked on FF as well. I tried Opera, just didn't like the feel. No switching for me! -
#7.2 Posted by cork1958 on 29 Feb 2008 - 13:07
- That's about the worst reason in the world to use Firefox. Other than that memory leak which it still has, Opera is far more secure than Firefox.
Find these kind of tests, especially testing betas and nightly builds very inaccurate. It's all about YOUR OWN machine and how you use it. Personally and although I don't use EITHER of these browsers, Opera will kick Firefox's a** anyday of the week in ANY category except how many addon you need to use it!!
-
#8 Posted by XerXis on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:47
- rendertests would have been interesting, this is only javascript
-
(5 replies)
#9 Posted by neufuse on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:09
- How often do people do massive computations or looping statements in java script anyways?
-
#9.1 Posted by bangbang023 on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:20
- True, but look at Neowin. It requires a lot of javascript, especially on the front page.
-
#9.2 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 28 Feb 2008 - 22:41
- (bangbang023 said @ #9.1)True, but look at Neowin. It requires a lot of javascript, especially on the front page.
It shouldn't need any of that crap... at least in the ultra lean version (both accessible and fast) that a lot of people wished. -
#9.3 Posted by RyanVM on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:35
- (neufuse said @ #9)How often do people do massive computations or looping statements in java script anyways?Consider that much of the browser interface runs on javascript and more will be in the future. Overall UI snappiness has been one very pleasant side effect of the javascript optimizations
-
#9.4 Posted by HawkMan on 29 Feb 2008 - 02:22
- (RyanVM said @ #9.3)(neufuse said @ #9)How often do people do massive computations or looping statements in java script anyways?Consider that much of the browser interface runs on javascript and more will be in the future. Overall UI snappiness has been one very pleasant side effect of the javascript optimizations
not for all browsers it doesn't. in fact I'm pretty sure we're only talking one browser who does that
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by +Garnett on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:23
- I got these results:
Latest Firefox 3 Beta 4 Nightly: 2491.2ms +/- 1.5%
Opera: 5368.4ms +/- 1.6%
IE7: 15636.4ms +/- 5.6%
I tried switching to opera, but it didn't feel the same, don't understand why the buttons are all different and the fonts are strange on some sites...
David.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by franzon on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:29
- I got these results on Windows Vista:
FF 2.0.0.12: 15923
IE7: 31198
-
#12 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:37
- PROTIP: Inserting 'Other Browser' in the pool options would not only provide accuracy but also truthiness into the damned pool.
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by supernova_00 on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:20
- Just to note, the PGO optimization is not unofficial, it is a default optimization since two days ago in nightly builds And also will be in beta 4 which the code froze for last night.
-
#13.1 Posted by Cryton on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:22
- Actually it might get backed out for beta 4 because it introduced some rendering regressions. But it will certainly make the cut for final release.
-
#13.2 Posted by supernova_00 on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:35
- (Cryton said @ #13.1)Actually it might get backed out for beta 4 because it introduced some rendering regressions. But it will certainly make the cut for final release.Yeah I thought about that after posting and just decided to leave the post alone instead of ranting on about that it may be but it caused regressions, not sure what else it could be screwing up since it was disable for a few things like the databases and some other stuff, etc.
-
#14 Posted by bucko on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:32
- I like FireFox and looking forward to FF3 although I do find the address bar a bit slow sometimes like a web page won't load but it does in IE6 but if I go through Google on FF2 the link loads quicker dunno if it's a bug I'm on XP X64 with NoScript and GreaseMonkey.
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by MCHAL on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:47
- And is that really big ****? OK, depending on your machine power (unless you have Quad Pent with all that empowering stuff), wait 20 secs or more for FF to open (with only three extensions installed)... Opera takes just two secs to open here - and what's more, Sandboxed!
-
#15.1 Posted by TRC on 28 Feb 2008 - 23:10
- wait 20 secs or more for FF to open
That's total nonsense, unless you're talking about launching it on a 486. -
#15.2 Posted by +rm20010 on 29 Feb 2008 - 05:00
- (TRC said @ #15.1)wait 20 secs or more for FF to open
That's total nonsense, unless you're talking about launching it on a 486.
Or on a Red Hat box (fitted with C2Ds) over a networked user profile. Firefox does take that long to show its window. I installed the Opera weekly builds and they take roughly 7-10 seconds to display (but much longer if the browser crashed last time it ran).
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by Julius Caro on 28 Feb 2008 - 18:55
- I'm doing the benchmark thing.. is it just me or the thing is just cycling through the tests again and again and again?
Fine I just read what the test does, lol
-
#17 Posted by rajputwarrior on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:11
- they could have tested the new webkit nightly build for mac, which is just stupid fast
-
#18 Posted by sonusingh27 on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:21
- WTF!
What does it matter about the FF Beta 3?! Its about the nightly builds.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:29
- Wow, my main problem with Gecko is that it was so slow
-
(4 replies)
#20 Posted by Intelman on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:30
- This is great stuff, I like Firefox alright, but it was slow....
Now if only it wasn't so ugly in Vista... it isn't final yet, but that design just isn't right. I'll just have to wait and see how IE8 is. -
#20.1 Posted by Express on 28 Feb 2008 - 19:56
- There are some posts in the Jscipt Blog that gives expected numbers for IE8 Jscript string performance
http://blogs.msdn.com/jscript/archive/2007...in-jscript.aspx
It doesn't say if the expected IE8 beta will include the perf. improvements. -
#20.2 Posted by z0phi3l on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:39
- (Express said @ #20.1)There are some posts in the Jscipt Blog that gives expected numbers for IE8 Jscript string performance
http://blogs.msdn.com/jscript/archive/2007...in-jscript.aspx
It doesn't say if the expected IE8 beta will include the perf. improvements.
Does anyone really CARE about IE8?
Didn't think so -
#20.3 Posted by Dynames00 on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:55
- (z0phi3l said @ #20.2)(Express said @ #20.1)There are some posts in the Jscipt Blog that gives expected numbers for IE8 Jscript string performance
http://blogs.msdn.com/jscript/archive/2007...in-jscript.aspx
It doesn't say if the expected IE8 beta will include the perf. improvements.
Does anyone really CARE about IE8?
Didn't think so
I think so... they are called web developers...
I think it is great news for Microsoft to make IE8 standards compliant, since it's usually a pain to get a site to work in IE when every other browser displays the site perfectly as it is. -
#20.4 Posted by MioTheGreat on 28 Feb 2008 - 22:11
- Does anyone really CARE about IE8?
Seeing as how it'll likely rise to the #1 web browser shortly after its release, I'd say: yes.
-
(5 replies)
#21 Posted by +EXO242 on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:13
- What? no Camino?
-
#21.1 Posted by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 21:39
- (EXO242 said @ #21)What? no Camino?
Isn't Camino just Firefox ported to MacOSX with Aqua?
-
#21.2 Posted by +EXO242 on 28 Feb 2008 - 21:46
- (Azmodan said @ #21.1)(EXO242 said @ #21)What? no Camino?
Isn't Camino just Firefox ported to MacOSX with Aqua?
Yes, but it's faster than Firefox on the mac because it utilizes Cocoa in OS X. -
#21.3 Posted by RyanVM on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:25
- (EXO242 said @ #21.2)Yes, but it's faster than Firefox on the mac because it utilizes Cocoa in OS X.So does Firefox 3....since the early alphas...
-
#21.4 Posted by +EXO242 on 29 Feb 2008 - 01:40
- (RyanVM said @ #21.3)(EXO242 said @ #21.2)Yes, but it's faster than Firefox on the mac because it utilizes Cocoa in OS X.So does Firefox 3....since the early alphas...
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info though.
I haven't tried it yet. -
#21.5 Posted by +shakey_snake on 29 Feb 2008 - 09:07
- (RyanVM said @ #21.3)Not quite.(EXO242 said @ #21.2)Yes, but it's faster than Firefox on the mac because it utilizes Cocoa in OS X.So does Firefox 3....since the early alphas...
Firefox now uses Native Cocoa page widgets. so, that buttons and web forms look like OSX now.
Gecko still renders Firefox's toolbars inside the window and such, whereas Camino uses Cocoa for that and Gecko only for the page layout.
[edit]OK, I'm wrong about this. Gecko now uses the Cocoa API to draw everything, including native Aqua page widgets. Firefox them uses Gecko to draw the API..
My understanding of Mac app development is minuscule, so I'll shut up now.
Last edited by shakey_snake on 29 Feb 2008 - 09:23
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by KenAF2 on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:36
- You can download the top performing build (#1 in Neowin post) here:
http://people.mozilla.com/~tmielczarek/fir...en-US.win32.zip
It's more than twice as fast as Firefox 3.0b3, 30% faster than Opera, and ten times faster than IE 7.0. -
#22.1 Posted by Cryton on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:42
- (KenAF2 said @ #22)You can download the top performing build (#1 in Neowin post) here:
http://people.mozilla.com/~tmielczarek/fir...en-US.win32.zip
It's more than twice as fast as Firefox 3.0b3, 30% faster than Opera, and ten times faster than IE 7.0.
No, you don't want that - It's a PGO test build from 2008.02.25. It contains unstable code that can lead to dataloss (sqlite and mozstorage are PGO optimized and there's bugs in this).
You want the latest windows firefox nightly trunk build, which has PGO enabled, and at least one other javascript optimization since tmielczarek's test build.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by KenAF2 on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:54
- Cryton,
How about a link for everyone? -
#23.1 Posted by Cryton on 28 Feb 2008 - 21:43
- (KenAF2 said @ #23)Cryton,
How about a link for everyone?
Not from me; I don't want to link everyone to an untested nightly build that's just had a new feature turned on and may or may not be stable and may or may not cause data-loss or have other unforeseen problems.
Nightly testers who are aware of the risks know where to get such builds, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone hosing their profile with a nightly build I link to.
-
#24 Posted by +stevember on 28 Feb 2008 - 20:58
============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 6332.8ms +/- 1.1%
Fx B3
-
(2 replies)
#25 Posted by Aahz on 28 Feb 2008 - 21:58
- Betas and nightly builds don't count.
-
#25.1 Posted by Azmodan on 28 Feb 2008 - 22:07
- Why not? These beta and nightly builds shows up the latest development on the browsers. Internet Explorer 8 passed the Acid2 test, and there's not a public test out yet.
-
#25.2 Posted by Aahz on 28 Feb 2008 - 23:18
- I'm not saying that the speed increases aren't legitimate but I am saying that what is released as a beta or a nightly is often quite a different beast than what makes it to final and is released to the masses as such.
These builds may very well be optimized and efficient but the bugs and flaws which remain by the very nature of them being betas could very well translate into some concessions for mass-support.
In other words; when Joe Average hits "update" in his browser of choice it's that final build which truly counts to the vast majority of users in terms of speed, efficiency, and optimization. Anything else is simply a soon-to-be-replaced build which shouldn't count in benchmarks as it isn't what most users will be using.
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by ThePitt on 28 Feb 2008 - 22:25
- and how much memory uses? 2? 3GB?.
-
#26.1 Posted by RyanVM on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:33
- (ThePitt said @ #26)and how much memory uses? 2? 3GB?.Download a nightly and see for yourself. In case you haven't been following Fx3 development, memory usage is an area which has also been undergoing improvement.
-
(1 reply)
#27 Posted by Neo Razgriz on 28 Feb 2008 - 22:57
- What is PGO Optimized?
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by adrianarrakis on 28 Feb 2008 - 23:28
- RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 6130.2ms +/- 0.4%
Using opera 9.5 -
#28.1 Posted by Cryton on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:30
- (adrianarrakis said @ #2RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 6130.2ms +/- 0.4%
Using opera 9.5
What is the point of this post? The test result is dependent on how fast your computer is. You can't just post one result and expect it to mean anything - you'd have to test a load of different browsers/builds on your same computer to get results that can be compared to each other..
-
#29 Posted by PrEzi on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:31
- ============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
--------------------------------------------
Total: 6750.0ms +/- 0.8%
--------------------------------------------
Opera 9.5 Build 9807
-
#30 Posted by toadeater on 29 Feb 2008 - 00:40
- Internet Explorer 7: 72375.0ms <--- surely $20 billion in R&D could have done better than this?
Very interesting, however I haven't compiled the latest nightly build to check it's performance. My results elaborate that Opera champs over Firefox 3 Beta 3. What about you guys? Also, tell us what you're using by voting for your browser!