The results are in from benchmarks of Firefox 3.5, performed by ZDNet.The benchmarks test all the main browsers from Google Chrome 2.0.172.33, Safari 4, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.0.5, Opera 10 Alpha and Internet Explorer 8. Each browser was put through three tests including SunSpider javascript benchmark, V8 Benchmark Suite and finally the ACID 3 test.
Firefox 3.5 was built for speed and performance, compared to previous versions of Firefox. Firefox 3.5 performed better than Firefox 3.0.5 and Internet Explorer 8 in all three categories.
From the graphs, it is clear to see that Google Chrome performed the best overall, followed shortly by Safari 4 and then Firefox 3.5. Firefox 3.5 scored a 93 on the ACID 3 test, falling shortly behind Google Chrome, Safari and Opera 10 alpha, all scoring a perfect 100.
Firefox 3.5 is fast and speedy, but it's still lacking the speed of Google Chrome or Safari 4 in terms of performance benchmarks.
Image credit: zdnet.com
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
Yea? so what specific development you need to do for IE8?? what extra burden makes you cry?
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
haha
IE8 is actually leaps and bounds better in terms of development tools.
@Beastage As for "real life browsing", much, MUCH more of the web is being pushed to JavaScript/Ajax driven things. Thus, "real life browsing" is going to keep being pushed into JavaScript engines and the speed of them. For example, At work we use a third party application to keep track of project management and it takes about 5-10 seconds to load in Firefox 3.5 due to a heavy implementation on JavaScript. It takes about 1 second in Webkit (Safari/Chrome). I'd hate to see that in IE. Now, I should note that the computer I'm using there is very slow. Here at the house the page loads in about 1 second on Firefox and IE.
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
Yea? so what specific development you need to do for IE8?? what extra burden makes you cry?
Make special code for a lot of things, where in other browsers like Chrome and Firefox works without problems, IE bitches and complains about everything and don't work.
To make CSS & JS work in all browsers it's a pain in the ass just because of IE, if it wasn't for this browser, coding would be way easier.
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
HAHAHA True. I just can't buy into the "fast" argument. I love Microsoft, I'm definitely a supporter in most cases (i.e. when they do something right), but IE is EASILY the slowest thing running on my machine. By a sizeable margin. It's almost unusable. Thank god for Firefox and Chrome (I bounce back and forth).
...
You're right, we developers should cry instead of laugh when talking about IE.
Yea? so what specific development you need to do for IE8?? what extra burden makes you cry?
Please look at the ACID3 tests.
"real life browsing" can't be taken into account because developers go through the pain of supporting IE so that user's "real life browsing" experience goes smoothly.
How can you say that with a straight face??
hmm... coming last in every benchmark ever made?
Ye, they are great at copying other browsers' features. In fact, they copy everything. I can't remember a single feature in the OS or anything else that was innovative. Their ability to steal ideas is shockingly good.
Ye, those adware popups and home page hijacks are the best ones I've ever seen.
Even though, i am a firefox users for years because of its speed mainly, once Chrome came into the picture, its speed is tremendously felt everytime i use it in most sites i usually visit and so it became my new default browser
Exactly. On my computer and my laptop, Firefox outperforms Chrome every time I've tried it.
Benchmarks do carry some value to them, but overall, the Firefox extensions I use make my day to day tasks much easier and save me a lot of time that cannot be measured simply with performance tests.
Correct; it was me.
To be fair, the only reason Safari was targeted was because it was running on OSX, which has a flawed ASLR implementation, making exploits easier to execute than Vista/7/Linux.
Safari on Windows would have probably been a little harder to work with for that exploit.
If you want security, use Chrome or IE8. No other browsers implement privilege dropping and isolated processes for browsing.
If you wan security DON'T use Chrome or IE8 (provided you're running Windows because that's the only platform those two browsers run on at the moment; there's a Mac and Linux port in the works for Chrome). The problem with Chrome is the fact that it sends nearly everything to Google (read the privacy and license statements!). Google also uses some of the Chrome users as it's testbed without them knowing (the official definition for this would be: spyware).
IE8 is still heavily tied to Windows, it makes it a very complex browser which makes both browser and system vulnerable to malware and other nasty stuff. IE is also the browser with the worst security history. IE7 is a big improvement, IE8 even more so, but the question remains if it's enough.
Moral of the story: because both browsers support some security features doesn't make them secure. It's all about the entire feature set and how well that feature set is implemented.
Safari on Windows would have probably been a little harder to work with for that exploit.
If you want security, use Chrome or IE8. No other browsers implement privilege dropping and isolated processes for browsing.
who cares it is apple fault
Hehe, nice!
IE8 is still heavily tied to Windows, it [blablablablabla].
+1
-2
Chrome yes, IE8 absolutely not! IE has been proven time and time again as the most insecure browser in existence. The activex implementation alone will get the system of john doe user infected within five minutes of usage. Not only that, but its deep integration with the OS should admonish even the most carefree of users.
This. Ive installed it a few times and its decent, I just prefer Firefox's addons I use all the time. Opera is the only ither I ever make a switch to
Exactly. I couldn't care if Chrome loaded pages twice as fast, I'd still stick to FF. Not because I'm a fanboi, but I couldn't live without some specific addons.
Besides, even if Chrome is in theory faster how does it compare to FF running ad-block? I'm sure all those annoying/pesky/retarded flash ads take some time to load and render.
Hopefully, they'll get support finished soon so we can get some real addons.
And a real adblock at that.
AD-Muncher is a damn good ad blocking program even though it's not free it's really good. i been using it for years now.
I've done the same for all PCs I own. It is by far the best Ad blocker on the market and worth every penny. I use AdBlock Plus in FF on the Macs though.
Ever think I run a Mac AND a PC?
hmm yea, safari is still easily the slowest browser installed (program-wise, not page rendering).
He said "...run Safari under Windows." Nowhere did he mention not using Safari in OS X.
Where's the surprise?
http://dromaeo.com/
It's faster on SunSpider too.
All in all if I need my extensions I will use Firefox, but if I need to keep a flashy webpage open for a long period of time I will run Chrome
I just want a browser that has the best of all worlds....
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel
M. Keeley, I really couldn't care less that Chrome is faster if it can't do what Firefox can.
Go Chromium Nightly Builds!!!!
Last edited by Azian Orange on 01 Jul 2009 - 17:22
When Chrome has Add-ons like Firefox does, then maybey it will be worth considering.
I'd kill for an Adblock Plus like addon for Chrome though. That and a "Save Image in Folder" addon. God that makes image grabbing so much easier...
I'd kill for an Adblock Plus like addon for Chrome though. That and a "Save Image in Folder" addon. God that makes image grabbing so much easier...
I haven't used Chrome in some time, but last I did, there was no 'Home button'. They could add that too. I might consider it then, but I am an avid home button pusher.
I will stick with FF for now.
Safari 4 is good and fast when needed, but Fx just seems to offer more. Switch between the too regularly.
Does Chrome work on x64?
well if you don't use extensions (for Firefo
but if your like many who got to used to the extensions Firefox offers then using another browser ain't a realistic option for us.
there's pretty much 2 extensions i would rather no go without in Firefox myself.... 'AdBlock Plus' (pretty much standard issue install for Firefox users
Never did I notice IE8, Firefox or Opera to reach cpu usage figures like Chrome/Safari which peak at 80%-90% (on a quadcore) , there is absolutely no reason for browsers to eat so many CPU resources in the name of quick performance which they fail to deliver anyway (above competition) .
Here is something worth thinking about, WebKit browsers consume CPU and there for consume more electricity... millions of computers = millions of wasted watts.
Actually no, not here at least.
javascript.options.jit.content IS enabled but not javascript.options.jit.chrome
SunSpider
With .chrome: 1133.4ms +/- 0.8%
without .chrome: 1131.0ms +/- 1.2%
And indeed, the added speed from Chrome can be felt as well.
But Firefox simply has too many good features and extensions for me to disregard that.
You're hilarious.
Google fanboys are a dime a dozen-dozen these days.
Its not a horse race. Not only has to do with speed. I like personalization, extensions, among other things. However, all this competition will lead to better browsers for all the tastes which is a good thing.
+1
I did the test and it passed it 100/100
I did the test and it passed it 100/100
LOL =))
Windows 7 blows XP away in terms of productivity, and that's most important speed test out there period.
FF was great in the early days....fast, customizable, loads of cool features like tabs and addons etc
But FF 3 and now FF 3.5 are sluggish and slow on most sites I visit.
I like chromes layout and since adding the adblocker to it I like chrome alot more.........As soon as they get addons sorted I'll be saying goodbye to FF
Chrome I would use, except for the fact Google likes to spy on everything you do and record every website you ever visit for the rest of your life. I guess they have some kind of perverted fascination with peoples browsing, and feel the need to store it forever.
Safari I kinda like actually. Only it could use some nice skins for it. And IE8 isn't slow like those benchmarks show.
The only thing I like about Chrome was that it launched faster then Firefox but that only happens once and Firefox stays open for hours then.
Nevermind.
Ok. I'd take a little bit less speed over ad-filled web-pages anyday.
Adblock Plus ftw.
I accept defeat and all but this is ridiculous.
I accept defeat and all but this is ridiculous.
Opera's still running on an antique Javascript engine, until they release Carakan, their now one, they have no chance at any JS benchmarks.
I ran the bench myself (C2D E8400 stock):
Opera 10 Beta 2 1615: 2587.4ms
Firefox 3.5: 842.0ms
Chromium 3.0.192.0 (19824): 404.6ms
i mean its day and night, duh
i dont care about an add filter in fact i DONT want an add filter, i want speed any nonsense you add to a browser just makes it slower
I love that it is highly customizable, etc.. but it loads slow and just seems downright sluggish compared to Chrome. Google has the fastest browser out there and I am totally hooked!
Their slogan should be the old adage, "Less Is More".. because in this case, nothing could be truer.
You loaded a portable version to see the speed of Firefox? Why not the real thing? Loading the portable app just slowed it down by like 50%.
If speed was everything, those race cars with the huge wheels in the back would be the best cars on the road today. But they're not, because they lack some features. Same with Chrome. Really fast, but lacking in features.s
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.