RSSThe heat is on: Latest Google Chrome closes the gap with Safari 4, Firefox 3.1
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 17, 2009, 5:55 PM
For the first time in...forever, speed and efficiency are becoming factors in determining the quality of Windows-based Web browsers, in a race for excellence that has never been this competitive. Last week, when we tested the five leading Windows-based development browsers, what was then the latest version of Google Chrome scored a solid second place in speed and performance tests on the browsers' respective JavaScript interpreters. Apple's Safari 4 for Windows was out front and pulling away, and the new Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 was making it a three-way battle.
Even adopted Hoosiers like myself love a good race in the spring. Today, with the release of a new beta edition of Google Chrome (build number 2.0.169.1), Betanews added the latest build to our ongoing virtual machine performance test. We've been using a clean Windows Vista SP1-based virtual machine, with only the latest browsers installed. We didn't add any system updates to the VM from last week, because we wanted the new Chrome's figures to be relative to all the others. And we're using not the fastest test environment (a Virtual PC 2007-based Vista VM) because we're interested in relative performance, not raw speed.
In last week's tests, we developed a speed index that accumulates the score from four different performance suites, compared against a relatively slow Web browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer 7. All our scores are indexes relative to how IE7 fared under the same conditions, which we scored 1.0 as a basis.
Our test suites include HowToCreate's CSS rendering test (since the rendering times can vary, we averaged the times for five renders for each browser); developer Sean Patrick Kane's octathlon which renders a cumulative speed after a battery of eight tests; the Web Standards Project's Acid3 compliance test, which renders its score as a percentage; and the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark, a pentathlon of real-world simulations that include elements like AES, MD5, and SHA1 cryptography puzzles; ray-tracing formulas; and handling of JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) expressions.
The latest Google Chrome beta made one big impression right away: For the first time, it scored 100% on the Acid3 test, versus the latest Google production edition's score of 79%. That gives the new Chrome a leg up coming out of the gate with an 8.33 index score (it rendered text according to standard 833% better than IE7). At least, that's what we think. As our screen capture shows, the test still projects a big ol' "FAIL" word over the result, popping up just after the test begins. But the final number is still 100, and that's how we'll tally it until we hear otherwise.
Next: Is Chrome 2.0 beta really 35% faster than old Chrome?...
OK. here is my other comments after few days using it.
1. Less memory usage please.
especially when we open many tab. each are eating our memory.
2. Do Not Remember our Password, when not permitted.
sometimes chrome remember our password, even when we did not permitted. example www.mail2web.com
3 Test compatibility with popular website such as facebook, twitter, youtube, yahoo mail, gmail, hotmail, live, and others
4. solve the double click problems.
and others
Score: 1
|Since no two systems are alike, truth be told these tests are pretty subjective. Opera 9.64 is still a hell of a lot faster (and more secure) than anything else on my 3 PCs (one each running XP SP3, Vista SP1, and Windows7 Beta).
Score: 0
|I sure hope Google is focusing on much more than just speed. I tried Chrome on Windows and it really blows. Hopefully the Mac version will impress.
Score: 0
|what blows about chrome on windows exactly? i can't find anything wrong with it, dispite missing features many are used to, but it is beta still
and how will being ported to OS X improve it?
Score: 1
|Chrome does not appear to install itself onto the Program File folder but under your personal settings folders.
Score: 0
|"what blows about chrome on windows exactly?"
- Questionable privacy
- Interface that is the most lacking of all the major browsers. No significant bookmark management. Wasted toolbar space in any configuration. Inability to see toolbar titles with many tabs.
- As mentioned above, nonstandard method of install in nonstandard location(s.)
- released "unfinished."
- Lack of plug-ins
- Settings/bookmarks import is borked.
- Highly unstable (at least when I tested upon its release months back.
Score: 0
|I like the previous post, to sum it all up -- Firefox is more complete. Yep, it just works in so many ways better than the rest. Sure speed, perhaps not, though how much weight is given to absolute speed, when everything is so much faster on the Net these days. FF works well for just about all sites, and with the right plug-ins is just, as said before complete.
Score: 0
|Well, it's an interesting browser and it's helping fuel competition again. I've tried it and I doubt I'd use it every day, simply because Firefox is more complete and I have to ask myself who I trust more: Mozilla or Google. There is a lot more to a browser than quick JavaScript execution.
Score: 0
|Google need to improve it
1. Faster browsing:
- Add the compression technology such as Opera Turbo and the Blackberry.
- Built-in smart Ads block
- Add setting to optimize the browser based on the connection: Dialup/ slow connection, medium and fast connection.
2. Add more security:
- Add virtual keyboard such as the kaspersky Internet security for online transaction
- and other security
3. More user friendly
and others
Score: 1
|"Built-in smart Ads block".
Somehow I really don't think that will happen. Why would Google make a browser that blocks it's own ads (Google almost does have a monopoly on advertising)?
Score: 0
|Google says that it will eventually have a plug-in architecture. It will only be a matter of time before it will support ad-blocking. Since it is open source, there's not much they could do to block it, either, other than server-side adblocking detection (which I believe will become more and more common)
Score: 1
|I use FF3.1 b3.
I don't feel like switching to any other browser unless it has an built-in ((or extension)) ad block option - like the Ad-Block plus extension where we can set get filters and make our own!
QUESTIONS - FF3 installs much faster that all the browsers mentioned in the list. How is it in Chrome? I haven't tried the new version, had read about some silent installing and what not.. can anyone enlighten me on that?
And why is Safari setup so big?
Score: 0
|I have the latest stable version on one machine, and the latest beta on a second machine. Normal browsing they're both fast, very, very fast indeed. But I didn't notice any difference between them, perhaps if I'd hovered with stop watch in hand I may have detected a little something or other. But normal folk don't do that, we're just happy to get around speedily, and these beauties really motor. IE 8 due out next week I understand, and that is also going to be fast if you believe the reports, if it is, then it could be a contender for the top spot. Firefox is losing it, Opera lost it way back, and Safari just keeps crashing, but Chrome just goes on getting faster, and better every day.
Score: 0
|Chrome 2.0.170.0 does not have the "FAIL" in the upper left corner, however, the "LINKTEST FAILED" still remains in the middle of the screen. Closer.
For the record, I disagree with including the acid3 test into a "speed and performance" comparison between the browsers. You should either remove it, time how long it takes to complete the acid3 test, or change the name to "speed, performance, and conformance" comparison.
Score: 1
|I was wondering why the previous article didn't include Chrome's latest 2.0 dev build.
Score: 0
|Looks like the Acid3 test itself is a big ol' fail in and of itself.
Score: 1
|In order to "pass" an acid test you have to match with the reference rendering, not just get 100. I think some browsers are already doing it.
Score: 0
|I was wondering if you could (and I know this may be a bit much) make a public Google Spreadsheet so that, when we run our own tests of all the browsers (I like to use the dev and Chromium versions of Chrome) we can copy the spreadsheet and put in our values so that we can get the relative performance numbers. If that's asking a lot, it would be nice if you could just describe your specific methodology for how you get these numbers so that I can make one (it'd be my pleasure) that I could post for everyone who wants to do this. That is, unless I'm the only one in the world who would want to do this. :)
Score: 1
|