Opera 9981 beats Firefox 3.0pre in a Mozilla benchmark


Recommended Posts

The Linux performance of Opera is still a bit on the slower side, but the Windows version just speeds up with every new snapshot release.

And now the newest (and fastest) snapshot of Opera (build 9981) actually beats the newest (and fastest AFAIK) nightly of Firefox (2008051011) in the Mozilla javascript performance test, the Dromaeo benchmark.

Opera score :

http://dromaeo.com/?id=9707

Firefox score :

http://dromaeo.com/?id=9709

The latest Opera snapshot :

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/...d-optimizations

It's quite a feat when you consider that just more than a couple weeks ago Opera was behind Firefox by 1 whole second, and now they are ahead by 100ms, not to mention it's a test made by Mozilla :cool:

100 ms :| as if I care about it when I browse some web sites

well, it's a benchmark, and the total result is just around 2 second, so when you put it into perspective, from 1 second (50%) slower to 100ms (5%) faster in a couple of weeks is quite a feat ;)

Especially when Firefox made it sound like a huge thing by claiming itself to be the fastest browser when b5 was released, so it's fair game :p

Your result is in the 11 thousand range, the new Opera build is in the 2 thousand range ;)

Depends on the machine. My FFb5 is in the low 1000's http://dromaeo.com/?id=9815

Anywho, this is good. Faster browsers are better for us (the consumer). Yay for competition!

No doubt the latest Opera weekly is faster. However, my results tend to differ from yours:

Opera 9.5 beta build 9981: 1392

Minefield 2008051107: 1353

Firefox 2.0.0.14: 6992.6 (lol)

Webkit r33029: 1246.4

Results are too close to call for the latest Opera and Firefox previews. So let's just sit back and pat both on the back for speeding up their products. :yes:

Edit: Let's give Webkit some praise too.

Edited by rm20010
Ya in ms. big deal. Wait until your Opera becomes final. I have never heard of this test site. As far as I know it is meaningless.

well it's about as meaningless as how the Mozilla guys made it sound like a BIG DEAL when ff3b5 was released and claimed itself as the fastest browser for some synthetic javascript benchmark. And some dude here even posted a "Firefox beats everything" thread back then, so it's fair game :p

and obviously it's quite a big deal to them since they even made their own javascript benchmark, the Dromaeo, so yeah this test site is THE Mozilla javascript test, it's no wonder you haven't heard of it since Mozilla just made it after firefox3b5. If you have something against it, tell that to the Mozilla guys, and tell them to wait their Firefox becomes final instead of beta 5 :p

But then they both make some great progress in javascript performance lately, so kudos to both teams, and to the webkit for being very very fast all this time.

This is a generic browser test site that happened to have been made by a Mozilla (and jQuery) guy. Mozilla have taken it and are working with other browser guys to make the test better.

Not everything has to be a "us vs. them" thing.

This is a generic browser test site that happened to have been made by a Mozilla (and jQuery) guy. Mozilla have taken it and are working with other browser guys to make the test better.

Not everything has to be a "us vs. them" thing.

So? it doesn't change the fact that it is THE Mozilla javascript test. It's not a "us vs. them" thing, it's just a fair game after all those "Firefox 3b5 fastest browser" reports everywhere for the past month or so :p

I tried this in IE7 and it just froze and I had to end the process lol.

yea, IE7 freezes, IE8 beta 1 can pass the test, I guess that means the IE guys are also doing a good work lately (compared to themselves before that is) :p

I think the fact that when the flashing contest button on the NW frontpage was broken and used a full core on IE, and ~25%(50% of one core) on FF and what was it 5% or so on Opera shows wich browser handles scripts better :)

I still use Maxthon though, but I may change when 9.5 is final.

Ya in ms. big deal. Wait until your Opera becomes final. I have never heard of this test site. As far as I know it is meaningless.

Javascript performance isn't meaningless though, especially not in this day and age of Javascript-heavy AJAX sites.

So this is interesting, and I think there's no coincidence both Mozilla and Opera have been focusing a bit on this lately. Sites may widely be affected, regardless if it's about Gmail or e.g. Digg.

Well I did some benchmarks on my computer (x2 4800+ @2.64Ghz / WinXP) and it does seem to be speedy but Firefox 3.0pre 080512 (ayakawa's PGO build) had a slight edge over Opera 9981 in JavaScript when I tested. Overall both seem very fast and you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference between the two.

Opera Score 2278.20ms (Total)

http://dromaeo.com/?id=10000

Firefox Score 1987.60ms (Total)

http://dromaeo.com/?id=10004

JavaScript Performance Test

Firefox firefox30prewj4.png

Opera opera9981os3.png

DOM Core Performance Appending, Prepending, Inserting, Indexing, Removing

Firefox (avg. of 10 tests): 961.1ms

Opera (avg. of 10 tests): 511.1ms

DOM Core Performance Parsing

Firefox (avg. of 10 tests): 1359ms

Opera (avg. of 10 tests): 1467.7ms

hmm

if I add up the scores form the 3 tests you showed/listed I get

FF: 2585

Opera: 2330

Well if you add in the SunSpider Javascript benchmark in which Opera is about 2 seconds slower, then Firefox would take a considerable lead.

SunSpider Result Firefox 3770.4ms

SunSpider Result Opera 5775.4ms

All said and done optimized Firefox 3.0pre builds are still faster with javascript then Opera and Opera is still faster rendering the other objects on the page other than javascript. If they stay neck and neck like this while continuing to improve, performance won't even be much of a factor when making a decision to use either Opera 9.50 or Firefox 3.0 once the final versions are released.

well, it seems Firefox managed to improve its score steadily in the past few days with each new build

http://dromaeo.com/?id=10161

Also I guess it depends a lot on the system, maybe that's what the PGO is about. It's faster on the Woodcrest system, but a bit slower on my old Thinkpad

http://dromaeo.com/?id=10162

http://dromaeo.com/?id=10164

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
    • The reviews you refer to mean nothing. Where there is no journalism there is no reason to call the gaming media's opinion pieces "reviews". For GP games there is indeed a metric for success - increasing subscriptions. Which turns in revenue. The only circumstance in which subs do not rise when great is being released is a Game Pass system where the company is close to fully saturated with customers in a subscription. However, in that case as the theory goes you spend aplenty in all kind of games - from shady live service cash cows and customer offending agitprop crap in purple colours to robust and entertaining single player games. And keep a solid level of profitability. Ignoring the simply innocuous but mid games MGS has released primarily of the second kind.
    • Report: Microsoft to use AWS to help GitHub deal with a major surge in demand by Pradeep Viswanathan Thanks to the surge of coding AI agents, GitHub's usage has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. To meet this demand, GitHub started with a plan in October 2025 to increase capacity by 10x. However, by early this year, the company realized that it needed 30x scale. This rapid growth has caused severe strain on the platform's reliability, resulting in several small outages over the past few months. In April, GitHub published a long blog post explaining the steps it is taking to resolve these reliability issues. In the post, the company also confirmed that it is working toward a multi-cloud architecture for better resilience. Today, Business Insider reported that GitHub is turning to Amazon Web Services to help deal with a major surge in AI-driven coding activity. It is important to note that GitHub is still in the process of moving completely to the Azure cloud. The current plan is to move the platform fully to Azure by 2027 so that it can scale better as per developer demand. Therefore, the current decision to utilize AWS might be part of a short-term plan to meet immediate demand. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that GitHub is using multiple cloud providers with the following statement: For Microsoft, the decision highlights the operational pressure behind the AI boom. GitHub has to stay reliable for developers at a time when rivals such as Codex, Cursor, Claude Code, and other AI coding tools are gaining attention. And the decision to use AWS for computing capacity seems practical given the circumstances.
    • It's growing on me, however, your right, it make better usability sense if the tabs were bellow the address bar.
    • Qwen 3.6 is better value per dollar, and you can run it locally for free.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!