Windows 8 CP's Internet Explorer 10 benchmarked

Wondering which browser out of those available for Windows 8 is the fastest? Look no further than our benchmark comparison betwewn Internet Explorer 10 (installed by default) and Chrome 17, Firefox 10 and Opera 11.60. All benchmarks were conducted on a freshly installed browser (all settings default) with just one tab running; all were run on the Windows 8 Consumer Preview build 8250 on the same system with no background applications open.

Sunspider (in ms, lower is better)

As most people know, Sunspider tests the JavaScript performance of a browser

HTML5 Test (out of 475)

The HTML5 test awards the browser a score out of 475 that reflects how much support for HTML5 the browser has

Peacekeeper (higher is better)

This benchmark shows the all-round capabilities of the browser

BetaFishIE (in FPS, higher is better)

This benchmark is made by Microsoft to show the CSS3 animation capabilities of Internet Explorer 10. It worked with all browsers except Opera 11.60

Fishbowl at 2000 fish (in FPS, higher is better)

This benchmark is made by Microsoft to show the HTML5 animation capabilities of Internet Explorer 10. Take the results with a grain of salt though because Microsoft clearly optimzed this benchmark to work well on IE10.

We would also have run a WebGL benchmark but WebGL is not supported in Internet Explorer 10 natively. If we do more benchmarks of these browsers we'll post them here, so check back occasionally for updates.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 8 woes got you down? We have your support forum ready

Next Story

Windows 8 integrates Xbox games like Pinball FX2

58 Comments

View more comments

Sub_Zero_Alchemist said,
Firefox 10 has a higher score than what is shown,that score is outdated and misleading the actually score for FF10 is actually 332 with bonus of 9.

Personally I also think a preview browser should have been compared to preview browsers but this is perhaps nitpicking (I'm not sure how much the scores would change when compared to Chrome 19 and Firefox 13).

Phalanger said,

That's a bit harsh when windows 8 is not a supported system.

Shouldn't Mozilla need to do their homework to update Firefox to fully support Windows 8?

mahara said,

Shouldn't Mozilla need to do their homework to update Firefox to fully support Windows 8?


Not when MS does not. Likewise I don't see IE10 on Windows 7/Vista yet.

Phalanger said,

Not when MS does not. Likewise I don't see IE10 on Windows 7/Vista yet.

So Mizilla's motto is "being at least as bad as MS" ?
BTW, MS updated IE to fully support Windows 8. Your comment is obviously invalid.

RealFduch said,

So Mizilla's motto is "being at least as bad as MS" ?
BTW, MS updated IE to fully support Windows 8. Your comment is obviously invalid.

You obviously don't get the fact that even Microsoft does not support Windows 8 or IE 10 yet.

The HTML5 test awards the browser a score out of 475 that reflects how much support for HTML5 the browser has

Seriously, there are still people who rely on HTML5test to measure the HTML5 support of a web browser?

HTML5 support just asks the browser whether it does implement a feature. I does NOT verify if it is well implemented, and compliant with the W3C standards.

Chrome and Firefox are racing to implement tons of half baked HTML5 features that are NOT standard compliant, and will break websites rendering in future versions.

Look at the W3C's HTML5 test case to see the real quality of the html5 implementation in IE10 vs the other browsers.

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/

what is the point of implementing tons of web standards is they are not reliable and have a 10% implementation fault rate? Do the webmasters miss the days of IE6 and want firefox/chrome to provide them more headaches?

read this if you want to know what you're going to face is you actually use HTML5 features (currently most self proclaimed "HTML5 based" websites only uses HTML4 features and a little CSS3):

http://blog.millermedeiros.com/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

link8506 said,

Seriously, there are still people who rely on HTML5test to measure the HTML5 support of a web browser?

HTML5 support just asks the browser whether it does implement a feature. I does NOT verify if it is well implemented, and compliant with the W3C standards.


It's currently as good as it will get if we're interested in testing for HTML5 features using a benchmark, and the HTML5Test suite is continuously refined to make as accurate tests as it can. Yes, vendors are potentially able to "cheat" it but the only thing they'll gain from that other than a number is poor publicity.

Speaking of inaccurate tests, Peacekeeper is said to have issues where it depends on timer implementations on the tested web browser, details that are actually not impacting browser speed.

I personally think Kraken is a modern test suite that has few known flaws, which is seeing too little attention. Sunspider was developed in a time and age that doesn't match that of today, and is also quite irrelevant these days. This is evident not the least because modern browsers are fighting over milliseconds in that test, and also that the test itself doesn't test for bottlenecks in modern web technologies. Kraken was developed for this reason.

Northgrove said,

It's currently as good as it will get if we're interested in testing for HTML5 features using a benchmark, and the HTML5Test suite is continuously refined to make as accurate tests as it can.

Wrong. this test tests fetures that aren't part of the HTML5 specification. And the author doesn't want to fix that.

Northgrove said,

It's currently as good as it will get if we're interested in testing for HTML5 features using a benchmark, and the HTML5Test suite is continuously refined to make as accurate tests as it can. Yes, vendors are potentially able to "cheat" it but the only thing they'll gain from that other than a number is poor publicity.

Speaking of inaccurate tests, Peacekeeper is said to have issues where it depends on timer implementations on the tested web browser, details that are actually not impacting browser speed.

I personally think Kraken is a modern test suite that has few known flaws, which is seeing too little attention. Sunspider was developed in a time and age that doesn't match that of today, and is also quite irrelevant these days. This is evident not the least because modern browsers are fighting over milliseconds in that test, and also that the test itself doesn't test for bottlenecks in modern web technologies. Kraken was developed for this reason.

Actually you are wrong... It is purporting to be an 'HTML5' test...

Yet it scores for things that are NOT HTML5 related or even 'proposed' to the W3C standards.

One example, WebGL is NOT HTML5, and is highly dangerous, yet it gives 'points' for it.

It is a worthless arbitrary test that the sitecreators use to justify their love for Chrome.

link8506 said,

Seriously, there are still people who rely on HTML5test to measure the HTML5 support of a web browser?

HTML5 support just asks the browser whether it does implement a feature. I does NOT verify if it is well implemented, and compliant with the W3C standards.

Chrome and Firefox are racing to implement tons of half baked HTML5 features that are NOT standard compliant, and will break websites rendering in future versions.

Look at the W3C's HTML5 test case to see the real quality of the html5 implementation in IE10 vs the other browsers.

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/

what is the point of implementing tons of web standards is they are not reliable and have a 10% implementation fault rate? Do the webmasters miss the days of IE6 and want firefox/chrome to provide them more headaches?

read this if you want to know what you're going to face is you actually use HTML5 features (currently most self proclaimed "HTML5 based" websites only uses HTML4 features and a little CSS3):

http://blog.millermedeiros.com/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/

I'll take those results with a grain of salt they don't pit current browsers against one another ie: IE10 vs Opera 11.61 (should have been Opera Next 12.xx)

On my installation IE10 scored 137ms total on sunspider. Again this is down to system spec, good drivers, etc

Riva said,
On my installation IE10 scored 137ms total on sunspider. Again this is down to system spec, good drivers, etc

Yep and that's exactly why I did all these benchmarks on my system

The HTML5 graph doesn't start at 0 and instead starts at some bogus random value, therefore the graph doesn't fulfil its main purpose which is to visually and quickly assess the extent of the differences between the values. These differences are completely skewed visually, 370 looks like it's twice as much as 330. Listing the raw values in a sorted table would actually have given just as much information and been less misleading.

BetaFish seems doesn't work in Opera 12, yes, but I have 60 fps in Fishbown with up to 3500 fishes. Drops to 59fps above. Chrome 18 shows 41 fps at 2000 fishes. And just about 0,5-2 fps in Firefox 11 at 2000 fishes.

coth said,
BetaFish seems doesn't work in Opera 12, yes, but I have 60 fps in Fishbown with up to 3500 fishes. Drops to 59fps above. Chrome 18 shows 41 fps at 2000 fishes. And just about 0,5-2 fps in Firefox 11 at 2000 fishes.

hmm missing edit icon...
43 fps in Firefox 11, hardware acceleration was set to disable

How hard do security professionals need to scream:
"WebGL is NOT a standard, has NOTHING to do with HTML5, and is highly dangerous!"

At the end of the article you 'specifically' say you didn't run WebGL tests; however, this is a lie.

The HTML5 Test DOES test for WebGL features, and marks down browsers for not supporting them.

(It also rates on several other things that have NOTHING to do with HTML5. Maybe you should consider NOT using that site as a reference, or at least ask them to remove the non-HTMl5 items from their 'so-called' HTML5 Test!


Another thing you fail to mention...
Sunspider is 'javascript benchmark, for 'WEBKIT' based engines. Surprisingly IE10 does well on the test, but considering that many of the items in the Sunspider test are 'irrelevant' to how IE10 works, it is more amusing than indicative of anything important.

thenetavenger said,
Sunspider is 'javascript benchmark, for 'WEBKIT' based engines.
It's not *for* WebKit, it's *by* WebKit. It's still valid for other browsers, just might be a bit biased to WebKit's workings.

BumbleBritches57 said,
NO WAY IN HELL IE is faster than Chrome.
As much as your protestations are valued, could you point out how? IE9 is well known for having pretty excellent hardware acceleration.

Kirkburn said,
As much as your protestations are valued, could you point out how? IE9 is well known for having pretty excellent hardware acceleration.

IE haters, you know.

Kirkburn said,
As much as your protestations are valued, could you point out how? IE9 is well known for having pretty excellent hardware acceleration.

IE haters, you know.

Commenting is disabled on this article.