• On BNET: Vote: How will Apple blow it?
October 17, 2008 10:37 AM PDT

Newer Chrome, Firefox show speed improvements

by Stephen Shankland

The SunSpider test shows Tracemonkey-enabled Firefox leading the newest Chrome build in JavaScript performance--for now at least. Test results reported in seconds, so smaller is better.

(Credit: CNET News)

Correction 12:00 p.m. PDT: This report has been updated to reflect Firefox performance with the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine enabled, in which case Firefox is fastest at the SunSpider test.

With new beta versions out for Firefox and Google Chrome, I thought I'd see how things have changed when it comes to testing the speed of JavaScript, the programming language that powers many cutting-edge Web applications such as Gmail and Google Docs. The answer: both browsers made big strides, but Firefox still beats Chrome on one widely-used performance test.

When Chrome was released, I ran Google's JavaScript speed test on Firefox 3.0.1, the initial Chrome beta, Internet Explorer 7 and 8 beta 2, and Safari 3.1.2. Chrome led the speed test with an overall score of 1,851 and Firefox in second place at 205. A bigger score is better on this test.

Running the same test on the latest developer version of Chrome, 0.3.154.3, boosted the browser's score to 2,265--a 22 percent increase. And Firefox jumped 15 percent to 235. Firefox 3.1 beta 1. However, that test measures Firefox without its new TraceMonkey JavaScript engine enabled; a bug in TraceMonkey trips up the test by invoking a print dialog box. (There aren't any new versions of Safari or IE to test, though Safari likely will see a boost from its earlier score of 170 from the SquirrelFish Extreme JavaScript engine.)

In September, Firefox backer Mozilla countered Google's benchmark suite, spotlighting Firefox's superior results using the SunSpider speed test. Here, TraceMonkey works, and Firefox maintains its lead over Chrome and the others.

Chrome vs. Firefox JavaScript scores

The newest Chrome beta is 22 percent faster on Google's own JavaScript benchmark. Firefox's performance score increased 15 percent--but that doesn't factor in TraceMonkey, because a bug breaks this test.

(Credit: CNET News)

I couldn't run SunSpider when Chrome was released because the site was out of commission that day, but it's up and running again now, so here's the latest results for the four browsers--and bear in mind here that a smaller score is best for SunSpider: TraceMonkey-enabled Firefox led with a score of 2,257; Chrome was second at 2,904; Firefox 3.1 beta 1 with no TraceMonkey next with 4,233; Safari 3.1.2 followed at 6,351; and IE 8 beta brought up the rear with 9,025.

Mozilla's Mike Shaver said the bug that impairs the Google JavaScript test--one reason TraceMonkey isn't enabled by default--should be fixed "soon." For those who want to try the their own tests, Tech-Recipes has useful instructions on how to enable TraceMonkey.

Why you should care
Why does all this matter? A few reasons.

First of all, JavaScript is widely used in innumerable ordinary Web sites, and Internet companies have found that even small improvements in Web page responsiveness increases user interaction with their sites. A snappier response is better for everyone.

Second, for the more avant garde, JavaScript powers many sophisticated Web sites and Web-based applications, endowing them with features such as drag-and-drop, pop-up dialog boxes. Faster JavaScript means companies such as Zoho, Google, and Yahoo can build more features into the Web applications and that users will find those applications easier to use. And these more interfaces are spreading to mainstream sites, too.

Last, on the programming front, JavaScript is vying with other technologies for building rich Internet applications. Microsoft steers developers to Silverlight, Adobe Systems continues to improve its Flash and Flex technology, HTML itself is getting more powerful. And of course there's the larger competition between Web-based applications and those that run directly on the PC, such as Microsoft Office.

A final note: The same benchmark caveats apply this time around, too. Your mileage may vary--my tests were on a dual-core Lenovo T61 with Windows XP. There are other performance attributes that affect Web browsing besides JavaScript performance. And even in the narrower realm of JavaScript, benchmarks like these don't necessarily represent the workloads that will have you pining for a faster machine.

Originally posted at Business Tech
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
Recent posts from The Download Blog
Shazam iPhone app gets a premium Encore
Review redux: Flixster movie app for BlackBerry
Official NASA app and a hovercraft racing game: iPhone apps of the week
Popular iPhone movie app flops on BlackBerry
Must-have utilities for your Windows toolkit
Opera Mobile 10 beta browser: First Look video
Doom, Command & Conquer revived for iPhone
Mozilla's e-mail group looks toward the cloud
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (44 Comments)
by kingbman13 October 17, 2008 10:57 AM PDT
Doesn't mean much when it is going to be beta for 5 years and buggy. I like most people will stick with firefox.
Reply to this comment
by Fil0403 October 19, 2008 7:58 PM PDT
Wrong: most people will stick with Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer.
by bp92 October 17, 2008 11:05 AM PDT
if you are going to test betas and developer ware, why not include the current webkit builds as they also have JS engine improvements (which outpace the firefox betas from what I can see) ?
Reply to this comment
by samkass October 17, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
Agreed... WebKit/Safari nightly builds are the ones to beat at this point. SquirrelFish Extreme seems like the most promising of the JavaScript engines and it's barely mentioned and its speed isn't listed.

Take a few minutes and try the nightly builds to get a comparison: http://nightly.webkit.org/
by YankeePoodle October 17, 2008 11:22 AM PDT
The inherent advantage firefox has are the add-ons. Speed matters, but firefox is the a more complete browser
Reply to this comment
by assman October 17, 2008 11:31 AM PDT
I just performed the sunspider test on the latest build of Chrome ("Chromium"), and I got a result of 2100ms, must lower than Stephen's result of 2900. I used my HP Vista laptop, 2ghz core2duo.
Reply to this comment
by anythingbutmicrosoft October 18, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
The ~30% decrease in performance you had was probably because you are on Vista, he used XP. Nearly all apps run about 30% slower on Vista vs. XP. Reason 7,312 why XP is the last Microsoft OS I'll ever bother with. Also notice how much slower IE is with everything? Slower, non-standard, virus magnet. Why does anyone still use IE?
by assman October 18, 2008 11:58 AM PDT
No "anythingbutmicrosoft", lower times are BETTER. I had a 30% INCREASE in performance over Stephen's XP build. 2100 means it took my browser 2100ms to complete the test (about 2min) rather than 2900ms (about 3min).
by 08Rabbit October 17, 2008 11:37 AM PDT
Try opera. It's faster than firefox...but im not sure about Chrome.
Reply to this comment
by bedney42 October 17, 2008 11:48 AM PDT
Stephen -

b92 is right. If you're going to be testing betas, you really need to be testing Webkit nightlies as well. The current Squirrelfish Extreme is really, really fast - possibly even faster than the ones you tested.

Fair is fair, after all.

Cheers,

- Bill
Reply to this comment
by Mereo1 October 19, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
That's the keyword... The webkits are "NIGHTLIES" while firefox 3.1 is a beta. Big difference.
by goodspeed8701 October 17, 2008 12:13 PM PDT
I wonder why people dont use opera. FF sucks and i will only use IE or Opera... The rest a garbage
Reply to this comment
by cb3431 October 17, 2008 12:30 PM PDT
FF is getting worse with every release.
by ddesy October 17, 2008 12:52 PM PDT
Hold on... you prefer IE to Firefox? Wow.... I don't know anyone who actually thinks that way.
by JuggerNaut October 17, 2008 8:55 PM PDT
There is no web browser worse than IE, PERIOD!
by EdCnb October 20, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
Your results are different than my experience. FF is my primary browser with IE as a back up. Oh well to each their own.
by UmeshS October 17, 2008 12:13 PM PDT
Can you post URLs of 3-5 real web 2.0 sites that show the difference in snapiness due to speed increase in all these JS engines? I want to validate the usefulness of these speed advances first-hand. Thanks.
Reply to this comment
by Rants&Raves October 17, 2008 2:31 PM PDT
The point is that sites are being careful to limit interactivity to what JS can currently do. When JS can do more faster sites will be able to draw from a wider range of options.
by nissanGTRfan1 October 17, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
google chrome is the best 4 me
Reply to this comment
by KrunkAttack October 17, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
chrome loads up most pages the fastest for me, but anything with videos or interactive elements seems to slow it down alot
Reply to this comment
by Imalittleteapot October 17, 2008 10:37 PM PDT
And I can only guess here, but I wonder if that's perhaps because plugins get loaded in a separate process. Takes a while to start a new process, but that's probably not it. I just wondered.
by walker2151 October 17, 2008 3:16 PM PDT
What about the Safari version 4 developer preview? I tested it and it got a 294, I was just curious so I did it while I had other tabs and windows open, so, I don't know if that affect it. I've been using it because it seems to be faster than everything else for Mac, firefox 3.1b1 included (as far as I could tell).

I've ran into problems with certain pages using Chrome, but with the speed I would switch (if it were on mac), Safari version 4 has some problems too, but it's the fastest I can find for mac, I hate version 3.
Reply to this comment
by bmgomes October 17, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
Thanks, but I'll stick to Opera!

Good to have new products around, though.
Reply to this comment
by btipling October 17, 2008 3:38 PM PDT
I disagree about including webkit nightly's as some of the commentators have suggested. Nobody has any idea when webkit nightly's are going to make it to production because Apple prioritizes marketing needs above helping out web developers by giving us an open roadplan idea. Firefox 3.1 is in beta and will likely be released within a few months at most. Who knows when webkit's nightly will ever make it to production, and when they do I guarantee you it will be a very old nightly + recent security fixes.
Reply to this comment
by walker2151 October 17, 2008 3:43 PM PDT
I just ran Crossover Chromium on my mac and it scored a 2006 on the benchmark, but it loads images and scrolls poorly on my macbook.
Reply to this comment
by jaypres October 17, 2008 5:41 PM PDT
I can't believe there are people using Opera. Opera is used by nerds.
Reply to this comment
by osiris1620 October 20, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
nerds are usualy right thats why there nerds
by techfan_08 October 22, 2008 12:37 PM PDT
ha!
by TheSoftwareArchitect October 17, 2008 6:45 PM PDT
Again nothing about Opera 9.6.... i'm tired of this...many times, your tests includes multiple browsers except.... Opera...

Makes me think how much they paid you to avoid tests on Opera.....

Opera is fast and i'm using it since 7 years now and very hapy to use the same browser on my Linux, windows machine, my Apple laptop and on my PDA...

Too bad....
Reply to this comment
by Nuotrino October 17, 2008 8:49 PM PDT
To be fair to all, one can not compare a browser released a year ago (Safari 3.1.2) with a group of browsers under development. Safari beta equivalent is (3.1.2 + latest SquirrelFish Extreme). I benchmarked the three browsers in my environment which is a MacBook Pro with Vista 32 / Sp1 and all the updates, 4 GB ram, 2.4 GHz Core 2 duo. The contenders are Chrome (0.3.154.3), Today release of Firefox 3.1b1 and Safari 3.1.2 (Webkit 37604). The results are as follows:

V8 Benchmark:

Chrome 2459
Safari/Webkit 1877
FireFox 79?

Sunspider:

Chrome 1636.2 ms
Safari/Webki 1224.0 ms
FireFox 1466.8 ms

Dromaeo Benchmark:

Chrome 5251.6 ms
Safari/Webkit 3707.40 ms
FireFox 5482.8 ms
Reply to this comment
by ckurowic October 17, 2008 9:07 PM PDT
I disagree with these results. Firefox is an absolute slug compared to Safari on my core 2 duo 2.4GHz iMac.
Reply to this comment
by techfan_08 October 22, 2008 1:38 PM PDT
FF 3.0.3 was pretty slow for me, but Beta 3.1 is much faster!
by jrbeaman October 18, 2008 12:29 AM PDT
You say firefox is better, and yet chrome beats it in the two test results you show.
Your credibility sux.
Reply to this comment
by Nuotrino October 18, 2008 1:06 AM PDT
To be fair to all, one can not compare a browser released a year ago (Safari 3.1.2) with a group of browsers under development. Safari beta equivalent is (3.1.2 + latest SquirrelFish Extreme). I benchmarked the three browsers in my environment which is a MacBook Pro with Vista 32 / Sp1 and all the updates, 4 GB ram, 2.4 GHz Core 2 duo. The contenders are Chrome (0.3.154.3), Today release of Firefox 3.1b1 and Safari 3.1.2 (Webkit 37604). The results are as follows:

V8 Benchmark:

Chrome 2459
Safari/Webkit 1877
FireFox 79?

Best score = Chrome (2459)
Higher is better.

Sunspider:

Chrome 1636.2 ms
Safari/Webki 1224.0 ms
FireFox 1466.8 ms

Best Score = Safari/Webkit (1224.0 ms)
Lower is better.

Dromaeo Benchmark:

Chrome 5251.6 ms
Safari/Webkit 3707.40 ms
FireFox 5482.8 ms

Best Score = Safari / Webkit (3707.40 ms)
Lower is better.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (44 Comments)

Search Download Blog posts

advertisement

About The Download Blog

Download.com editors cover the world of downloadable software and beyond.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Download Blog topics