Slashdot Mirror
Benchmark Battle October 2016: Chrome Vs. Firefox Vs. Edge (venturebeat.com)
Krystalo quotes a report from VentureBeat: It's been more than a year since our last browser benchmark battle, and the competition remains fierce. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge have all gained a variety of new features and improvements over the past year. It's time to see if any of them have managed to pull ahead of the pack. It appears that Edge has made the biggest gains since last year. That said, browser performance is improving at a very rapid pace, and it shouldn't be your only consideration when picking your preferred app for consuming Internet content. You can click on individual tests below to see the details:
SunSpider: Edge wins!
Octane: Edge wins!
Kraken: Chrome wins!
JetStream: Edge wins!
Oort Online: Firefox wins!
Peacekeeper: Firefox wins!
WebXPRT: Edge wins!
HTML5Test: Chrome wins!
You can also read all about the setup used for the benchmark tests here. VentureBeat used a custom desktop PC, featuring an Intel Core i5 4440 processor (6M Cache, 3.10 GHz), 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 500GB SATA hard drive (7200 RPM), an Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 graphics card, and a 24-inch widescreen LED monitor (1920 x 1080).
SunSpider: Edge wins!
Octane: Edge wins!
Kraken: Chrome wins!
JetStream: Edge wins!
Oort Online: Firefox wins!
Peacekeeper: Firefox wins!
WebXPRT: Edge wins!
HTML5Test: Chrome wins!
You can also read all about the setup used for the benchmark tests here. VentureBeat used a custom desktop PC, featuring an Intel Core i5 4440 processor (6M Cache, 3.10 GHz), 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 500GB SATA hard drive (7200 RPM), an Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 graphics card, and a 24-inch widescreen LED monitor (1920 x 1080).
The newest version of Chrome is garbage. Crash city. I had to go back to Firefox.
Makes sense to me. Edge has almost always felt quicker, except when the web page doesn't want to play nice with the browser. Firefox after that, and personally Chrome has always been a sh1t show for me. I only use it when for some reason or another Firefox and IE/Edge won't play nice with a website.
Edge: 4
Chrome: 2
Firefox: 2
Cue the bitching about the individual tests Edge won not being relevant.
Then cue the only opinion that matters: Sites are bloated with trash scripts, ads, tracking, etc. and this performance race would be pointless if sites were designed in a sane manner.
Fuck Slashdot's subdomains. I lost FP because I had to reload the page and redo my comment since I wasn't logged into it.slashdot.org or whatever the fuck (because I only allow slashdot.org cookies on slashdot.org).
Wonder how Palemoon and Chromium fared? I use Palemoon on my Windows laptop, and on my PC-BSD, which doesn't have Chrome, I have Chromium. How different would Chromium be from Chrome?
uBlock Origin, uMatrix, Tab Mix Plus...
I can't live without them. I worry that they'll all go away when Firefox abandons their extensions system in the future, like they are talking about.
It's kinda weird running these tests with a GPU from about 6 years ago - a lot has changed in GPU technology/operating systems since then. Nowadays browsers heavily use the GPU and it would have a considerable impact on results.
The extensions I use have a serious impact on the snappiness on cold-load and a slight lag on everything I do online... but the alternative is blindly trusting MS or Google entirely with my security concerns in realtime on 2016's internet. With Mozilla's extensibility, there's no single point of head rot, policy change.
Edge could have won EVERYTHING and I still wouldn't use it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
All browsers are fast, OK we get it. Now what about the real issue, MEMORY USAGE!!!
Memory consumption is the big problem with modern browsers, how inefficient are they, how much memory do they consume over time, how often do you need to restart them because they consume all the memory on your machines. I don't use Windows, but I can say on OS X, Chrome is probably about the absolute worst with memory usage, it will typically hog about 200-500 MB per freaking web page. Yes, half a freaking gig just for a damned web page, thats utterly ridiculous.
When you start comparing efficiency, let me know.
MathML: Firefox wins!
Mostly on account of the other browsers not supporting it at all.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I've since switched to Opera (with built in ad blocking) and things seem faster.
Unlike FIrefox which would crawl to a stop randomly.
Nobody
Where are the Flash benchmarks?
Preparing to watch this post sink to the ocean floor....
These tests are totally rigged. No mention at all of Netscape Navigator. It's a disgrace.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What about Vivaldi I'm wondering. I've been using it for a few months now on both Win7 and Gentoo, and I've been liking it.
I use various flavours of Penguins for my OSes. So Edge or Explorer are non-starters.
I do not use Chrome because Google already knows enough about me.
Firefox has in recent years become increasing useless and full of unwanted "features". It even blocks me from managing my own Network equipment, "to protect me!".
The sole reason I use Firefox is because of the NoScript addon. Without it I would be looking elsewhere possible writing my own.
BTW Mozilla when are you going to implement the HTML5 Date related Tags.
Yep, same reason I wouldn't use Windows Phone: history shows that once Microsoft gains dominance, either quality goes to shit, they tighten the screws on pricing, or both. I'm going to go out of my way to avoid helping them gain a monopoly in any new areas.
Sunspider and Kraken are not really considered worthwhile benchmarks anymore, and HTML5Test.org is terribly unrepresentative and obviously biased towards Chrome. Even Octane has tests that are considered questionable, and Peacekeeper is also quite long in the tooth.
I'd also point out that Windows 10 is a pretty small slice of the browser pie. Benchmarks for other OSes, including mobile, would be more useful to a lot of people. A proper methodology would also test for stability, RAM and energy usage, page load speeds for representative sites, stress tests, and so forth (which would be interesting to see now that Firefox has finally gained a multi-process mode). But I guess I shouldn't fault the article for being terribly lazy and not doing any real work. It would be nice if Tom's Hardware would do another Grand Prix next year to give us some useful comparisons.
The test should be on a local LAN server and a mix of different hardware to test on.
also re-image the system after each browser change so that so caching can't mess up the tests.
...adblock.
All the plots in the referenced article do not start at zero. This leads to very misleading plots so be warned.
Lynx, the text mode browser, beats the lot in speed.
How is that for an illustration that features matter and Edge needs more than speed to measure up to the web browsers that have been developed for longer.
and I'd have a closer look at Sunspider, Octane, Jetstream, and Webxprt. MS has been known for "helping" reviews and articles...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Yet if you check the actual links, apparently Hillary won 54-37.
According to CNN, this proves the browser benchmark poll wasn't rigged, and that Trump is just being a racist.
Yes; like everything MS monkeys with - "let's make it different so users will be confused". I can't help noticing that whatever they do - Offfice, Windows, Browsers, Photo - they hide or delete features or make things more awkward. I spent an hour trying to get a friend's Photo Viewer back a while ago. Was it really necessary to hide a feature that still exists in the software?
>"The competition remains fierce. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge have all gained a variety of new features and improvements over the past year."
Isn't it nice to not have just one mega browser? Competition is a wonderful thing.... Edge is not multiplatform, nor open, so not sure it can count, completely. Chrome is not really open-source (the base is, as Chromium), but at least is multiplatform. Firefox is completely open and very multiplatform, but seems to be turning into Chrome for some reason (gotta piss off your user base, you know). But all three are winners in various benchmarks.
From the RSS summary: "That said, browser performance is improving at a very rapid pace, and it shouldn't be your only consideration when picking your preferred app for consuming Internet content." The SJWs need to stop using the phrase "consuming content". When I consume something, it finds its way into the septic tank.
Notice that in most of the ones where edge won they didn't zero the bar charts (bottom at zero) so it looks like edge won by a lot. But on most of the other bar charts they did zero them so it looks like the other browsers barely beat edge.
Point me to the version of Edge I can install from the Debian repos.... Yeah, not a contender.
I'm posting from Edge right now, and I must say that when I'm on Windows, its now a no-brainer for me. I don't even install another browser anymore.
On phones, I just use the default.
As for linux, I always use Firefox, cant be arsed to install chrome.
Most of the results (despite how the graphs are distorted) are actually really close.
Sunspider differences were actually big with Edge 108ms, Chrome 190ms, Firefox 254ms
Octane had Edge winning with 33489, Chrome second with 31839, Firefox last with 30307. That means Edge was about 10% faster than Firefox, with Chrome splitting the difference. Not huge.
Kraken had Chrome at 938ms, Edge 1160ms, Firefox 1224ms, so around 25% slower for Firefox - enough to be noticeable, depending on what you're doing.
Jetstream had Edge winning with 219, Chrome with 184, Firefox trailing badly at 154, so again a fairly substantial gap. Looking a little at the details, all had around the same throughput and whatever's being measured on latency was the driver for the differences.
For the Oort WebGL graphics, Firefox was best with 10000, Chrome second at 9940, Edge third at 9920. Those are not differences that excite me.
Peacekeeper (no longer maintained) had Firefox first at 4655, Chrome second at 4325 and Edge trailing badly at 3091 - not quite as lopsided as the Sunspider results, but quite the reversal.
For WebXPRT (HTML5+JS), Edge won with 448, Firefox at 402, Chrome at 396. That's 10% faster for Edge, but margin of error for Chrome and Firefox.
And finally for the HTML5 test Chrome had 499, Firefox 462, Edge 460 - again around a 10% difference between slowest and fastest.
fencepost
just a little off
How useful is the result of a test run on a computer with better hardware than 99% of desktop systems in the world?
Nice of them to run these benchmarks, but a little better analysis would be nice. Like the Oort Online test. Chrome got 9960 and Firefox "left it in the dust" with 10,000. That's 0.4%. The difference in frame rate would be 59.76 fps vs 60.00 fps if the results are translatable.
Also, I doubt their results are generalizable across all computers. I just ran the peacekeeper benchmark on all three browsers on my laptop and chrome won.
Just take all benchmark results with a grain of salt, especially ones where all are withing 1% of each other. Saying "Edge won 4 out of 8 benchmarks" is virtually meaningless.
Yes, 'cause Microsoft is Evil (TM) and good old religious nutcases must not use Evil (TM) software. Welcome to the Islamic Caliphate of the computer world, Slashdot.
Point me to the version of Edge I can install from the Debian repos.... Yeah, not a contender.
Can't find the Edge browser in Fedora or Mint repos so I will have to make do with Chrome, Firefox, QupZilla and Konqueror not to mention the other web browsers I can install in a few minutes if I feel like it.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Why not include other browsers such as Opera, Vivaldi, or even Safari?
"VentureBeat used a custom desktop PC, featuring an Intel Core i5 4440 processor (6M Cache, 3.10 GHz), 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 500GB SATA hard drive (7200 RPM), an Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 graphics card, and a 24-inch widescreen LED monitor (1920 x 1080)."
So... a midrange "performance" PC from 2011.
I guess it represents the average PC that most people have... Why list all the specs like you are proud of it, though?
No love for Opera?
the biggest problem that I have is not browser performance, but crap web sites that are badly designed. ...) none of which improve my experience
* Download insane amounts of JavaScript from third parties (facebook, linked in, google analytics,
* Have large images or auto start playing some video advert
* Badly written - fail the W3 validator suite
* Javascript that sits in a loop using large amounts of CPU doing nothing (that I can see)
We need a survey for major web sites using metrics like this. The problem is web sites far more than browsers.
Then there is privacy, but that is another issue. How many web sites fail when you run Ad blockers or Javascript blockers.
What you fail to comprehend is MS sucks. Bitching about MS is awesome, has been for 20+ years. Join the MS haters club, everyone is doing it.
Unfortunately these browser tests were still conducted on a Microsoft Windows operating system. The real question is: What do the actual results look like on an ordinary Linux e.g. Ubuntu or Fedora desktop or laptop?
Why do I care of one browser can render a page 0.01s faster than another? What difference, at this point, does it make? I just want a browser that WORKS and that doesn't do stupid shit like allow scripts to steal focus from a text input box WHILE I AM TYPING IN IT. Chrome, I am looking at you.
It'd also be nice to have a browser that launched a nuclear warhead at any web developer that implements an interstitial splash, ad, or other annoyance.
.
For me, my concern is more with the disaster that the Firefox UI has turned in to.That affects me whenever I use Firefox.
How fast does a page load? They all load quickly enough, once I disable advertisements.
I'd like to see a Mac version of this, pitting Chrome, Firefox and Safari running natively on the latest OS and recent hardware.
Amen!
@terjeber No! Microsoft GOOD! Everything good and holy on this cursed planet is because it Microsoft. They don't lie about competitors, they've never manipulated benchmark results. And they've certainly never rigged markets. Welcome to the Planet Moron, MS Fan club.
They hate they get is deserved fucking fanboy piece of shit.
WTFDTM?
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
When Microsoft gained a dominate share of the browser market they produced the disaster that was IE6. All your shilling in the form of cool contrarian sarcasm can't erase that historic fact. It's worth using Firefox, Chrome, or whatever else works best for you, other than the Microsoft product, just to avoid the risk of that happening again.
never liked chrome from the beginning
haven't trusted microsoft for decades
firefox started out ok but got sidetracked trying too hard to be like chrome and microsoft
I use palemoon, it's most like the old firefox I preferred before it turned into crap
all the fancy numbers mean nothing if the user experience is garbage
palemoon gives ME the experience I want (and it's cross platform) - highly recommended for fans of the original firefox
haters are gonna hate, ignore them
use what you want but don't expect anyone else to agree with your choice
for what it's worth -- my first gui browser was mosaic, I've used a lot of different browsers over the years and I know what I like, you don't have to agree, you just need to quit being so negative about my choices and just use what you want and let me use what I want.
because it's the only one that won't suck up my information even when I tell it not to.
Open the source and we will talk. Until such time, keep your black box to yourself.
It uses /system/lib/libwebcore.so, which has a massive amount of bugs.
Firefox has a ghostery extension. Use this instead, because Gecko will stay updated. Webkit should be avoided on the Android platform, because you have no idea what you are getting.
Read carefully. Some of the bar graphs seriously distort the truth by using a non-zero origin. Notably, the one for Oort Online makes it look like there are big differences between the three browsers, despite the fact that the slowest browser is less than 1% slower than the fastest one.
UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
17.) UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons
Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
UBlock can't do these as well as (or @ all) hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C's
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnet C&C's
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C's
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks/hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
17.) UBlock now uses hosts (no DNS benefits vs. dns issues) - poor imitation = "sincerest form of flattery"
Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons
Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
I am in the same boat as you, but I use the Classic Theme Restorer Addon so I don't have to suffer the latest UI degradations.
If they continue to mess up, like with the Social Web stuff, i might switch to Vivaldi, though.
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
take a look at the APK hosts file engine by SuperKendall
APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
I like your host file system by Karmashock
I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech
* My code's liked/used + recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts - Argue w/ those folks above.
APK
P.S.=> See subject & those quoted /.'ers - want more? apk
There is NoScript Anywhere for Firefox for Android. Be forewarned, though, that Firefox Reader Mode requires that a site be whitelisted for JavaScript; apparently, Reader Mode requires JavaScript.