Chrome 4.0 Vs. Opera 10 Vs. Firefox 3.5

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 4.0 Vs. Opera 10 Vs. Firefox 3.5

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 7, 2009 @12:38AM from the three-enter-but-only-three-leave dept.

Jim Karter writes "In a three-way cage match, LifeHacker threw Chrome 4, Firefox 3.5, and Opera 10 into the ring and let the three browsers duke it out to see which would emerge as the fastest app for surfing the web. Quoting: 'Like all our previous speed tests, this one is unscientific, but thorough. We install the most current versions of each browser being tested — in this case, Opera 10, Chrome's development channel 4.0 version, and the final Firefox 3.5 with security fixes — in a system with a 2.0 GHz Intel Centrino Duo processor and 2GB of RAM, running Windows XP.'"

31 of 354 comments (clear)

speed by mdwntr · 2009-09-07 00:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just can't get all that concerned about the speed of my browser. Extra speed never hurts of course but it's hardly a factor in which one I choose.
1. Re:speed by tygerstripes · 2009-09-07 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed. How many more stories about browser-speed do we need, given how insignificant the discrepancies are? For most end-users, browser lag is completely dwarfed by restricted bandwidth.
  In my case, judicious application of AdBlock and NoScript make this a complete non-issue. I'm far more interested in standards compliancy and security.
  
  --
  Meta will eat itself
2. Re:speed by PouletFou · 2009-09-07 02:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can use chromium on linux. I prefer it to firefox now because when flashplugin crashes (often on x86_64), chromium does not have to be restarted, a simple refresh works.
Re:Safari by abhi_beckert · 2009-09-07 00:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Safari is in the test. It's just that they focused on the three new kids on the block, of which safari 4 is not among.
TFA does list results of Safari and IE, as well as other browsers, for every test in a separate graph.
Versions by Fri13 · 2009-09-07 00:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Google Chrome 4.0? I just one hour ago upgraded to latest Google Chrome beta of coming 3.0 version from Google labs. (3.0.195.10). If 3.0 has not come yet out, how can they test 4.0?
1. Re:Versions by nycguy · 2009-09-07 00:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  4.0 version is in the dev channel.
2. Re:Versions by Barny · 2009-09-07 01:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So they compare the current, stable release of firefox against dev builds of other browsers?
  And as others are saying, the fastest way to render a page that has a ton of scripting is of course firefox + noscript.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
AdBlock by mangu · 2009-09-07 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

In my experience, the fastest browser is the one that's running AdBlock, with flash, java, and javascript disabled.
1. Re:AdBlock by Chrisq · 2009-09-07 00:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You've obviously never run Lynx on a beowulf cluster.
2. Re:AdBlock by daveime · 2009-09-07 01:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well no shit Sherlock ... how long does it take to render an empty page ?
3. Re:AdBlock by Opportunist · 2009-09-07 01:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  RTFA, dammit, it depends on the browser!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Memory by NoYob · 2009-09-07 00:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

I made a bee line to the memory tests and based on my browsing habits, Firefox is the winner.

--
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
1. Re:Memory by hattig · 2009-09-07 01:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Of course using Windows Process Monitor to get memory usage for a application like Chrome which has different processes per tab/plugin leads to horrendously incorrect results, which the article acknowledges in an edit, without any attempt to get the correct figures. Shame really, as this functionality is built into Chrome...
2. Re:Memory by sopssa · 2009-09-07 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  One thing these tests don't take into account is the UI responsiveness, in which Opera really owns the other browsers - everything just seems fast and responsive. Chrome isn't that far, but you can still see how things like opening new tabs takes some time and isn't "instant". Firefox is also behind on UI responsiveness, and I probably dont have to mention IE (3-5 secs to open new tab, seriously?).
  This is what MS tried to improve in Win7 too. Even if its not really faster technically but just feels so, it improves usability a lot.
3. Re:Memory by whoop · 2009-09-07 02:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  everything just seems fast
  So true. More benchmarking tests need to include seems per second. I mean, come on, it's the 21st century and all! At least, it seems to me they should. That way their reports will seem much more seemingly accurate to what I want them to seem. ... I think.
4. Re:Memory by Ash+Vince · 2009-09-07 02:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Please bear in mind they tested on the latest stable version firefox, not the latest alpha 3.6 which has various speed improvements. Yet Chrome they used a development branch. Seems a bit biased in Chromes favour.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
5. Re:Memory by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-07 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You could measure the average time from clicking a UI element to something happening. Actually I wish people would test things like this rather than how quickly the Javascript implementation can crack brute force crack DES or whatever benchmarks Google are pushing so their prototype stuff can finally be released without people mocking it for being bloatware that is worse than Vista.
  It would also let me avoid Java applications - we have some horrible intranet ones at work that feel like your mouse has a dodgy button or something - you click stuff, assume it didn't notice it and click another couple of times before you see an hour glass cursor. If people tested for UI responsiveness at least I could avoid things that don't have it in situations were I have a choice.
  And, as a bonus it would encourage people to stop doing things that could potentially take more than a few milliseconds in the UI thread of Windows applications. In a very real sense UIs are a real time system and it is time more people realised the implications of that.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Raw speed is probably a moot point.... by gadget+junkie · 2009-09-07 00:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Having read the article, I found two things particularly interesting:

1. the author did not put any version of MS internet explorer in the Arena. Now that's understandable, all windows system come with IE installed, so the rationale, as I see it , is that there's no point in benchmarking a program that no one has to choose on its own. I only wonder what will happen if Europe goes forward in forcing MS to sell OEM copies of Win7 without IE installed.

2. the whole "speed" thingy is rather moot in my view. I've been using Firefox for some time now, and I DO appreciate the fact that fewer resources are used, even at the expense of a couple of seconds of starting and/or loading time. After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.

--
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
1. Re:Raw speed is probably a moot point.... by gbarules2999 · 2009-09-07 01:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  After all, it's not a multiplayer game where milliseconds seem to count.
  You forget you're on Slashdot. The Windozers will race to post XKCD 619 on every Linux-related story, and it gets neck and neck for the karma boost that "+5 Insightful" offers.
Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Kjella · 2009-09-07 00:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Or just use site preferences in Opera....

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Summary: by A+Friendly+Troll · 2009-09-07 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Agreed on the extended functionality - I hate the 'Awesome Bar', but no other browser offers keyword searches or the ability to easily add search engines to the search box (save for IE which I dont want to use).
Start Opera. Go to a website not included by default in its search options. Right click on the search field. Choose "Create Search".

Give me something to replace 'wp rabbits' and I will dump Firefox in an instant for Chrome or Safari.
Built into Opera before Firefox had it.
"Centrino Duo Processor" by Timosch · 2009-09-07 01:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Sorry guys, but Centrino is not a processor. It is a platform, specifying a certain processor, graphics chipset etc..
Fabulously useful Firefox speedup by David+Gerard · 2009-09-07 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative

on Unix, anyway. Exit Firefox, then do:
for i in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/*.sqlite; do sqlite3 $i "vacuum;" ; done
FF3.x does everything in sqlite. Some of the tables fill with crap 'cos deleted rows are marked "deleted" rather than actually being deleted and compacted. I hope future versions will run a vacuum automatically every now and then.
On this Ubuntu 9.04 box I had to apt-get install sqlite3.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
1. Re:Fabulously useful Firefox speedup by mindcorrosive · 2009-09-07 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Or use the Vacuum Places Improved (what kind of name is that anyway) addon from AMO:
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13878
  Available for FF 3.5+. Labelled experimental at the moment, but works just fine. Works magic with the "awesomebar" suggestion speed: fetching suggestions has never has been so snappy.
  
  --
  + 3.14 Transcendental
Firefox is unstable. by Futurepower(R) · 2009-09-07 01:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

The results about memory use were nonsense, as now mentioned in a revised version of the article.

Also, Firefox has bugs in its event handling, apparently. If you open a large number of Window and tabs, and keep opening and closing tabs over a period of hours, eventually Firefox will crash. Firefox has had that problem for many years.

Firefox also apparently has problems with its cache handling, apparently. For example, here is a comment to the Lifehacker.com story referenced in the Slashdot summary:

"Firefox 3.5 seems to get slower for me over time. It was really crawling the other day so I got the latest chrome and it seems blazing fast.

"I'll have to try some of the tricks to clean up FF. I'm sad to see it falling behind in speed because I like so many FF features."

If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, I'm guessing that people will abandon Firefox. There seems to be no hope that Mozilla Foundation will ever be managed well.

(I like seeing ads, I just don't like flashing, moving ads. "Marketing" people are amazingly ignorant, in my experience; they often don't realize that annoying people is not a good way to get customers.)
Re:Summary: by JohnBailey · 2009-09-07 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I keep hearing a few loud people complaining about the awesome bar, but I can't for the life of me figure out what they don't like about it.

Because people using the same computer will see their porn bookmarks. Embarrassing for a 15 year old when their mothers find the carefully hidden list by typing in something innocent in the address bar.

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Re:Safari by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-07 02:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Back in the old days we used to eat people who did that so that the knowledge they had gained unnaturally could be shared amongst the whole tribe. Now people have gone soft. Still one day the old ways will return.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You are on slashdot... by coryking · 2009-09-07 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Slashdot is a technology website dedicated to of people who take great pride and joy in disabling every new bit of technology in their stack.
Personally, I leave all that stuff on. I used to disable javascript out of the same "spite" most of slashdot commenters seem to have--but that was before Kuro5hin came with their fancy dynamic comments in what, 1999? So far, my CPU's have never melted, my power supplies are still purring, and my mice haven't keeled over and died.
Wonder what rigs these people run? 386DX 40mhz's? Orange screen VT100's hooked up to the local time-share in the university basement? ... remembers when his public library still had those VT100's.
Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-07 03:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Site preferences in Opera is a complete pain to use.
Firstly, there's no toolbar button to bring it up, it's buried under 3 levels of menu selection.
Right click, edit site preferences. Not admittedly that I use it much.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Unintuitive graphs by anilg · 2009-09-07 03:29 · Score: 4, Informative

..insignificant the discrepancies are..
Mod parent up.
The Tab loading graph (http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/17/2009/09/500x_eight_tab_load.jpg) seems to suggest Opera takes 4X, and Firefox 2X the time to load tabs than Chrome.. however, the X-axis is drawn from 6.0 to 9.0
If the Graph was rendered from 0-9, it would look like below:
Opera
================
Firefox
==============
Chrome
============
.. which shows that page loading is pretty much the same everywhere.. blowing the OMG-Chrome-loads-fast!!!! myth.

--
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
Re:javascript whitelisting ? by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-07 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Well Opera is immune from that sort of thing because only about 10 people use it so no one bothers to hack it.
Err.
I mean "You're totally right! Opera is a security nightmare! Don't ever use it!"

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;