Great deals from Verizon
Safari challenges Chrome on Web app speed
Google's latest version of Chrome has claimed the lead in my JavaScript speed tests, but Apple's new Safari 4 beta is the first browser to challenge it on Google's own performance benchmark.
JavaScript is a programming language that powers not just innumerable ordinary Web sites, but also many Web-based applications such as Google Docs. With the computing industry's major push to cloud computing, Web application performance is increasingly important, and there's a race on to see who's got the best JavaScript engine. JavaScript engines even have become a named feature, with Chrome's V8, Firefox's TraceMonkey, Opera's Futhark and upcoming Carakan, and now the Safari's newly branded Nitro, which is Apple's version of WebKit's Squirrelfish.
On the SunSpider test, the new Safari 4 beta scored third place.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)I use two tests: The SunSpider benchmark from the WebKit project, and the V8 benchmark suite from Google, both of which run a variety of computing tasks rather than real-world applications. Such synthetic benchmarks are always tricky business, often not aging well as technology improves, but these two are widely used.
The upshot: Chrome wins both tests handily, with Firefox in second place on Sunspider and Safari in second place on the V8 benchmark.
I'm using raw versions of these browsers, though. Chrome is available in three versions, stable, beta, and developer preview, and I'm using the latter, which is the least stable. The latest Chrome developer preview, 2.0.164.0, includes a significant new component to the V8 engine.
On Google's V8 suite of JavaScript tests, the Safari 4 beta was the only browser to get close to Chrome.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)Also in my tests are Safari version 3.2.2 and the beta of 4.0, Mozilla Firefox 3.1 beta 2, Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 release candidate, and Opera's version 10 alpha.
The results are an average of three runs on a dual-core Lenovo T61 running Windows XP with 3GB of memory. Results may differ on Apple Macs, of course, and of course bear in mind that there's a lot more to browsing than just JavaScript speed.
The Safari 4 beta had a respectable showing on version 3 of Google's tests, for which a larger number is better. Its score of 1,396 meant it's the first browser to come anywhere near Chrome, which this time around achieved a score of 2,240. Opera scored 202, Firefox 181, Safari 3.2.2 173, and IE a pathetic 63.
On SunSpider 0.9, the results were a more even distribution. Chrome scored 1,775--and bear in mind that here smaller numbers are better--to Firefox's 2,671, Safari 4's 4,257, Opera's 5,513, Safari 3.2.2's 6,345, and IE's comparatively feeble 7,168.
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, follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank, or contact him through Google Buzz. 
I didn't like the tabs to begin with and just saw it as a Chrome rip off, but it actually saves a ton of space. It's super fast all in and seems stable so far. Still doesn't auto-open the previous session which sucks though. The eye candy is nice and I might use the Top Sites thing - I used to code my own Web0.2 version of this back in the day before "Open folder in tabs".
Not bad so far though. Only one bug found but that was already in Safari 3 also by the look of it (check out my Flickr stream for that).
the UI and real world performance r more important than speed !
I see these types of comparisons even on mobile browsers and phones
which is even more ridiculous !
cause UI rules the roost in a browser, especially in a phone !
Becnhmarks r secondary IMO !
as far as the new interface goes
I'm disappointed that they decided to remove the blue completion bar
the rest of the UI quirks r a good improvemnt , I like the new tab bar especially
but I expected more on the search front !
In CPU benchmarks sure there is a place for synthetic benchmarks, but nobody would write an article on a CPU without running benchmarks of real applications.
I am also afraid that the way the current press coverage focuses SunSpider benchmarks in effect forces browser developers to optimize for benchmarks rather than for actual application speed.
I would love to see CNET take the lead here and start benchmarking the applications we actually use.
FireFox 3.0.6 4481.8 ms
Ferfox 3.1 beta 2 2114.4 ms
Safari 4 1172.6 ms
The test took place in the UK between 0.00 - 0.05 a.m
the days of Firefox being the only alternative to IE r over
Chrome and safari own Firefox in every way possible !
Extensions r only gimicks ,if n e thing they r more of hassle than a advantage !
Oh my!
FireFox is far superior to Safari
I have tried Safari on the Hackintosh and on Windows, Firefox is better
Extensions = gimmicks? NO!
I love my extensions, adblock, noscript, firebug, greasemonkey
they are 100% awesome and 0% hassle
all that is possible on both safari and opera without extensions
thats the problem with FF, it requires extensions for every single thing
it adds more bloat to a already bloated browser !
I agree that safari 4 is not good in windows
but safari 3.1.1 is way better than firefox
So far very zippy. It took about 30 seconds for all of my favorites to display their icons... but after that... smooth as silk....
And you should have use the same colors for browsers in two benchmark, it look a little bit confusing at first :)
Firefox 3.1b2 does have TraceMonkey enabled by default.
The test scored 3322.6ms with +/- 0.7%.
I think he was using the wrong version of Safari to achieve the scores above.
The Reload button has been put in the address bar. WHY!? That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. All in all, this is a very poor excuse for UI "improvements". It seems that Apple has lost their objectivity and their own direction. Ever since they've made software like Safari available for Windows they've been too concerned with courting Windows users. Go back to your roots Apple. Forget what Google or Microsoft are doing. Don't try to appease Microsoft Windows users. Follow your own Human Interface Guidelines for crying out loud!
HOLY &@^#%@&^#% I love it.. i work on my 32" monitor and i am sitting here drooling.. AND it's fast... who cares about comparing speed with Chrome...APPLE.. remember this...your look no matter what you do is ALWAYS cutting edge.. and everyone else is chasing behind you trying DESPERATELY to be like or as good as you. SAFARI 4 FTW!!!!!!!!! :) :) :)
We have come to expect more out of a Beta ever since a near perfectly stable Windows 7 BETA came out
The results are going to be different for everyone depending on your OS and your connection speed and type. For myself, being a Mac user on Broadband, I've found the new Safari version to be the fastest one for my computer now, given that Chrome isn't available for Mac yet. It's definately faster overall than Firefox, which is what I had been using before since it was faster than Safari 3. (Opera and Firefox are about the same speed for me, but Firefox has had more features.) I'm willing to deal with the bugs for a little while if any appear, though, because the thing that matters most to me is the navigation speed.
RAM might be a factor if one browser depends on it more than another but.. he tested with 3Gig so there should be no problem there... there can be no other conclusion that he's either just made up the numbers or is wildly incompetent.
Windows XP Prof, SP2, Intel Xenon 3GHz, 3Gig RAM...
here's what i got..
i did Acid Tests on..
Safari 4 beta 100/100
FireFox 3.1 B2 93/100
Chrome 1.01.154.48 78/100
FireFox 3.0.5 70/100
IE 7.05730.13 12/100 (this was pretty funny... was a jumbled mess piled in the upper right corner ***?)
SunSpider JavaScript benchmark... can also use V8 test...
Safari 4 beta 654ms
Chrome 1.01.154.48 819ms (1.25x safari)
FireFox 3.1 B2 1054ms (1.6x safari)
FireFox 3.0.5 2234ms (3.4x safari)
IE 7.05730.13 20340ms (31.1x safari)
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm
you guys should run sunSpider yourself because the number presented here don't match what i got or any number i've seen from any other review i've seen online thus far... the only explaination i can see is that the reviewer must have been running some photoshop filter or encoding video while running the test on Safari.
don't be snowed guys these results are completely bogus
- by ukdude February 28, 2009 10:57 AM PST
- So this is not comparing Safari 4 which scores 100% on Acid3 with 78%-scoring Chrome (which is slower on SunSpider), but with an experimental Chrome build. A bit like comparing a street legal production car with a specially modified hotrod!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (36 Comments)They are both fine browsers, of course, but right now Safari is a far more robust choice than Chrome.