Print 24 comment(s) - last by kaosstar.. on Feb 28 at 11:51 AM

New build brings GPU acceleration, synced passwords, beefed up Javascript performance

Internet Explorer 9 looks to make up much ground for poor previous outings by Microsoft browsers.  But even as it remedies slow performance and lacking standards, IE 9 is threatened by a slick set of super-fast browsers from smaller third parties who don't happen to be named Mozilla.

Among those challengers is Google's Chrome 10, which was just released in beta form last week.  Like IE 9 and Firefox 4, Chrome adds the much desire GPU hardware acceleration to Google's framework for the first time.  According to Google's blog on the release:

In full screen mode, CPU usage may decrease by as much as 80%!

Other major improvements have been made to Chrome's core Javascript engine.  Dubbed V8, the new engine offers 66 percent improvement in the company's V8 benchmark suite over the version found in the last stable build.

The new version of Chrome also introduced synced passwords, which allows you to share passwords across your (possibly) many computers.  The system includes passphrase protection, so your passwords are less likely to fall into the wrong hands.

Aside from speed, Chrome looks to hold an edge over IE 9 in HTML5 and CSS3 standards support.  Chrome 10's beta scores a mean 288 in the (beta) metric, versus 255 in Mozilla Firefox 4 and 130 for IE 9 [source].

Google needs to put its best foot forward with Chrome as the company is going to use the browser as the basis of its upcoming operating system.  Built atop a base Linux kernel, the browser-centeric operating system should prove a unique competitor to Microsoft's Windows operating systems.

Web Store was recently added to Chrome in preparation for the release of Chrome OS.  The web store allows developers to write web apps (games, music players, etc.) in languages like Javascript and PHP and sell them or offer them in ad-supported form.

Chrome 10 can be found here.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hardware acceleration fail
By phatboye on 2/21/2011 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
So if my memory serves me correct Chrome's implementation of hardware acceleration will not be based upon OpenGL but instead will use MS's proprietary Direct X API thus this new feature will not work on non-MS OS'es.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By JasonMick on 2/21/2011 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
So if my memory serves me correct Chrome's implementation of hardware acceleration will not be based upon OpenGL but instead will use MS's proprietary Direct X API thus this new feature will not work on non-MS OS'es.

I'm sure Google has a OpenGL implementation in the works... after all Chrome OS isn't exactly going to have Direct X onboard...

I can feel your pain, though, I frequently use Linux boxes and might consider switching from Firefox if Google offered decent hardware acceleration.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By B3an on 2/21/2011 4:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox also uses DirectX ... on Windows. And now Google does, simple because, it's faster, better, and so are dev tools and drivers.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By MonkeyPaw on 2/21/2011 5:57:11 PM , Rating: 1
I don't really care for FF anymore. It doesn't seem to manage resources that well, and it's been much more crash happy since after version 3.0. I like how simple Chrome is, and I can't remember the last time it crashed on me.

Anyway, I'm sure OpenGL support will remain where it is needed. After all, OSX also uses OpenGL for video acceleration, too.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By Kurz on 2/21/2011 7:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Check to see if your plug-ins are updated.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By Totally on 2/21/2011 11:44:37 PM , Rating: 4
Experiences differ, I literally could take your statement and just swap FF with Chrome, vice-versa. I rarely use chrome and almost it always crashes where I use Firefox all the time and it rarely ever does.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By bug77 on 2/22/2011 3:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
Unigine Heaven will disagree with you. It scores exactly the same with either OpenGL or DirectX11.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By AnnihilatorX on 2/22/2011 4:39:21 AM , Rating: 2
OpenGL performance and stability depends a lot on GPU especially drivers.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By bug77 on 2/22/2011 5:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
And DirectX performance doesn't?

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By kaosstar on 2/28/2011 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
Linux users, who, aside from Mac users, will be the only ones requiring OpenGL support, get terrible drivers from AMD (ATI), but usually decent ones from Nvidia. Windows users almost never have to worry about GPU driver stability, unless maybe they have bleeding edge hardware.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By kevinkreiser on 2/21/2011 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
I did some work on a webgl app and used ubuntu with the latest beta of chrome. Webgl (based on opengl es) worked like a charm. I'm pretty sure if they want to, they can offer gpu accelerated rendering of pages in non windows os's via opengl since they must have implemented webgl functionalities using it.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By omnicronx on 2/21/2011 10:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if memory serves its the exact opposite for the very reason you mentioned.

Unlike FF(for windows at least) and IE , Chrome's acceleration would be OpenGL based, which would explain why they added the 'in full screen mode' portion into the 80% improvement.

RE: Hardware acceleration fail
By omnicronx on 2/21/2011 11:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well i guess my memory does not serve me well =/

DX9 acceleration vs Direct 2d/other technologies for FF/IE

HTML 5 Score
By deheler on 2/21/2011 7:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Chome 10.0.648.82 only scores 244 plus 13 bonus points, not 288

RE: HTML 5 Score
By Chillin1248 on 2/21/2011 8:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome 11.0.672.2 scores 293 and 13 bonus points. In comparison, IE9 RC scores 130+5 and Firefox 4.0 Beta 11 scores 255+9.


RE: HTML 5 Score
By Belard on 2/22/2011 9:10:26 AM , Rating: 2
And OPERA 11.01?

IE is over 10 years old... to hit version 9 soon.
Opera, is over 12 years old, just hit 11.
Chrome is only 3 or so years old since version 1.0... and they are now 10? Still can't tell the difference between Chrome 1.0 and 9.0


no sidebar still?
By swampthing1117 on 2/21/2011 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
until they add a bookmarks sidebar like firefox, i don't care about chrome.

RE: no sidebar still?
By DominionSeraph on 2/22/2011 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 3
You should really see someone about your porn addiction.

Google - 160billion
By Captin Crunch on 2/21/2011 4:57:49 PM , Rating: 5
from smaller third parties

Among those challengers is Google's Chrome 10

just sayin...

Windows Tabets
By damianrobertjones on 2/21/2011 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
If Chrome doesn't offer full finger friendly navigation then it's out of the loop. Opera has a touch browser on the way....

Does it???

RE: Windows Tabets
By nafhan on 2/21/2011 4:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure the Android browser and Chrome are closely related, or at least closely enough that Google could reuse at least some of the touch/gesture stuff in Chrome if there was a need to do so. However, the touch + Win 7 (or OSX) market is very small compared to both mobile touch screen devices and non-touch PC's. Small market = small effort. Maybe some of the work on Honeycomb's tablet browser will carry over into Chrome. Who knows?

By DominionSeraph on 2/22/2011 11:04:23 AM , Rating: 4
In the interest of accuracy, Chrome is not lean. Its hard drive footprint is significantly larger than Firefox and Opera (170MB plus a 256MB non-configurable cache vs 28MB for Firefox and 17MB for Opera) and it takes up more memory too due to its sandboxing.

It feels lean because it's so darned fast and its interface is so unobtrusive and minimalistic. Chrome isn't bloated in the least, but it's not a small browser.

(I just DL'ed Opera 11 for this post to see its size, and tried it out [my last Opera build was 10.50]. It seems to be even faster than Chrome, which is quite the accomplishment. Too bad 5 minutes into playing around it crashed on Anandtech while multitasking (couldn't click on anything). So apparently Opera is still not stable enough to qualify as a real browser.
DL'ed Firefox too. Still dog slow. So bye-bye Failfox.)

I really like Chrome.

Windows XP
By kmmatney on 2/22/2011 2:05:59 PM , Rating: 3
Unlike IE 9, Google allows their latest and greatest browser to work on XP. My home machine is Win7, but we still use WinXP at work, and on a few systems at home. Between the computers of my wife and 3 kids, we have 8 computers at home, 4 of them still running windows about half still running Windows XP. The artificial limitations Microsoft puts on much of their software pisses me off...

By Visual on 2/22/2011 4:12:15 AM , Rating: 1
I don't use Chrome so don't keep myself up-to-date on the news around it, but man... just like yesterday, it was a brand new browser. When did it manage to get up to version 10?

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki