Slashdot Mirror


Google Frame Benchmarks 9x Faster than IE8

ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Early tests with Google's Chrome Frame found IE8 runs 9.6 times faster than usual. The testers ran the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite." The other question is what is the performance hit of using the Frame plug-in instead of running the browser natively.

18 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. benchmarks always forget the user experience by sopssa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    However it seems like they only measured JavaScript engine, which by no means contribute everything to how fast browser or browsing feels. And everyone probably knew already that Google's JavaScript engine outperforms MS's (and being one of the main thing Google's thing use, they have a reason to optimize it till its dead)

    This seems to be the usual thing with other browser benchmarks too, they only benchmark the javascript engines and similar under the hood things. Yeah it's easier, but it doesn't really tell the truth.

    User interactions and GUI responsiveness contribute a lot, actually even more so, to how fast browsing feels. IE is horrible with this and has always been; everything lacks behind, scrolling is galaxies far from smooth and the general feeling is just bad. On that note, Firefox suffers a bit from the same things. I think only Opera and Chrome have done UI responsiveness good. Which also brings the question, does Chrome Frame improve it on IE too?

    1. Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience by sopssa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are actually other points you can look at. Things like how fast the browser starts rendering the page while its loading makes a huge difference too. If you sit there waiting for the page to load and looking at white/previous page, its slow. If the browser starts immediately rendering the loading page, atleast something is happening. MS improved this a lot in Win7 too. Just if you see that something is happening or whats loading, it feels faster than just waiting. Of course feel is hard to benchmark, so they usually don't, but it counts a lot too.

    2. Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aside from the retrieval of a page, rendering said (static) page will be instant in almost all cases, regardless the browser. If it doesn't, either the page is way way way too complicated or you are using an antiquated machine.

      Welcome to the world wide web, TheRealMindChild. Out here pages are "way way way too complicated". You can close your eyes and go "lalalala" but that doesn't mean those pages aren't there.

    3. Re:benchmarks always forget the user experience by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This! ^

      Benchmarks aside, I feel like Chrome is the slowest thing on earth, because I see NOTHING until the page is finished loading. I try to be objective. I'll load the same page in Chrome and in FF. True, the page FINISHES about the same time, but with FF, I can see bits and pieces as they become available. Since I am interested in the text most of the time, it doesn't matter how long it takes for some other element to load - I'm never going to look at it. I WANT MY TEXT NOW!!

      That said - I agree with those who say web pages are to complicated today. Add in useless bloat like flash, advertising, etc. I can't browse any faster today with DSL than I did a few years ago with dial up! Something is badly wrong here.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. EEE by Diabolus+Advocatus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like Google are going to try and beat Microsoft at their own game:
    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

    1. Re:EEE by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful
      quote>Looks like Google are going to try and beat Microsoft at their own game: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

      I've seen several people mention this in the last mention of Google's plug-in as well. I don't understand and I have to wonder if the people saying this know what the strategy they're referring to is. The concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" is to comply with a standard interoperably until you are popular. Then extend the standard in a non-interoperable way, counting on your popularity and the new functionality to drive adoption. Then, extinguish the competition by utilizing the standard ubiquitously and in a non-interoperable fashion so that anyone who does not have access to the proprietary extensions you added, is removed from the market.

      So for IE the strategy was to implement HTML and other technologies interoperably until IE was very popular, then extend HTML with nonstandard elements and rendering and add ActiveX for more functionality no one else could use. Then extinguish competition by building lots of tools and that rely upon the proprietary version and relying on Web developers to target IE's broken version of HTML instead of the actual standard.

      So I'm trying to understand how people think Google is employing this strategy. They are embracing IE, sort of by implementing Web standards within it. How do people think Google is going to extend those Web standards in a proprietary way? Do they mean by building proprietary Web applications that use the standards? Do people actually think Google's strategy is to make Google apps really popular and then break compatibility with non-chrome browsers by making them no longer use Web standards? Won't that be hard while maintaining backwards compatibility especially since they're using an OSS browser? I suppose this is possible, but I don't see why people would assume it is Google's strategy.

      So basically, while I see that Google is extending IE to use Web standards, I don't see this as a likely part of an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Nothing stops Microsoft from creating a better implementation of Web standards in IE's rendering engine and out competing Google's plug-in and they have a lot of advantages if they do decide to compete. Rather, this is Google managing to chip away at MS's anti-competitive use of IE and make MS actually compete fairly a little more, pretty much the opposite of Google trying to kill fair competition which is what the EEE strategy is all about.

  3. The real question... by bignetbuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?

    1. Re:The real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, Google Frame upgrades the engines...on the Titanic?

      I'm the Bing of the world!

  4. Re:Whats the point... by Diabolus+Advocatus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're wrong there mate. On our corporate intranet there's a section of javascript that's 256k in size. IE6 (corporate standard) takes about 20 seconds to load that while Firefox loads it instantly. It's not about how fast the Javascript is received, it's about how fast it's rendered.

  5. So just for giggles... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...what's the ACID3 results for such a combo?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:So just for giggles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      100%, Fool!

      Proof : http://static.macgeneration.com/img/2009/07/googlexhrometestacid-20090922-225255.jpg

  6. No Wonder by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's no wonder Microsoft is claiming that Chrome makes IE less secure. If it lets IE run eight times faster that means that there will be eight times the rate of security breaches. Oh Noes!

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Safety Warning. by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft has issued the following PSA: 'Some users have been found to experience sides effects from a sort of 'digital whiplash' after installing the new Chrome Frame plugin for IE8. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'

    --
    Caffeine is my anti-drug!

    Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
  8. Re:FFS read the articles you post! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

    Greetings and welcome to Slashdot.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. Re:Whats the point... by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Likewise, I've seen javascript which manipulates large datasets, which takes the lion share of time to run; somewhere in the 30-60 second range. Recent javascript performance boosts have allows such manipulation of large datasets to become feasible and even practical.

    The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.

    Fast rendering and javascript is a make or break for most of these types of applications.

  10. Re:Defeats the purpose of IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    you have to add meta tag to make chrome frame work, otherwise it uses slow ie engine

  11. A good idea by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm going to go out on a limb here by /. standards, and say that this is a very good idea that is a neat technical solution to a problem. Google's goal is simple : their core strength is that they are incredibly good at creating and hosting web applications. They have some of the most reliable and least expensive (per unit performance) data centers in the world, and they have some top notch coders that have created some amazing applications. The problem is that web applications have to run in web browsers, 20 or more layers of code away from the processor on the host. There's unbelievable performance slowdowns compared to a native application. Speeding up the browser would make many google applications more responsive and compelling, and google could care less whose browser it is. They are freely licensing the chrome code for inclusion in other browsers. The problem with Chrome is twofold : 1. It's an unbelievably complex task to make a web browser work with every website. Mozilla and the Microsoft browser team have hundreds of developers that have worked for years on their browsers. 2. It's very difficult (and expensive) to get people to change browser. Microsoft wins by default most of the time. This browser plug-in solves both problems. Now, only websites that the developer knows will render properly in chrome will call on the plug-in. Users will continue to use IE8, oblivious to the fact that some websites are actually being displayed using the chrome browser engine. Google applications will of course all properly render in chrome, and they will be set up to encourage you to download the plugin if you're running internet explorer. Some google apps may even require it, much like you need flash to see youtube videos. The only problem with the approach is overhead : obviously keeping multiple browser rendering engines running at the same time will eat up a hundred extra megabytes of memory or so. You know, about $3 worth of DRAM.

  12. Re:FFS read the articles you post! by hattig · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take me to your leader.