Print 110 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Sep 15 at 12:05 PM

What browser is the best? We have the information you need to decide

In the last segment of our next generation browser benchmarking and comparison, we looked at user interface features and installation details.  We also benchmarked install times and application launch times.  We now will turn our attention to CPU and memory usage in this segment.  We'll also briefly contrast security in the next gen browsers.  This segment will be followed by a third and final installment in which we'll examine performance in popular benchmarks and standards support.

4.  Resource Usage

One of the most critical aspects of a program is the amount of resources it uses per the amount of work it does.  We measured memory and CPU usage for each browser with ten tabs open and loaded -- DailyTech, AnandTech, CNET, CNN, Sports Illustrated, Gamefaqs, Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Facebook (logged in).  We then took measurements after 15, 20, and 25 minutes of operation.

When it comes to memory, Firefox really shows its worth.  This may be surprising to some as early in its development the Firefox browser was known as a memory hog, due to memory leaks.  This has completely turned around and it is now the slimmest entry. Namoroka uses significantly more memory than 3.5.2, but hopefully this is just one of the rough edges that are to be expected of an alpha release.

Looking at the rest of the pack, Opera deserves an honorable mention for a close second in memory usage.  Safari and Chrome, on the other hand, were both memory hungry.  However, no application was quite as bad when it came to memory as Internet Explorer 8, which used nearly twice the memory of its closest competitor.

Turning to the CPU, Opera was in the lead for least average use.  Opera 9.6 also led for the lowest maximum observed CPU use.  Opera 10.0 did show a rather high maximum usage.  This is due to a brief, rather uncharacteristic, spike.  This appears to be a rather isolated occurrence, but nonetheless we kept the result.

Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer were all rather poor when it came to CPU use.  Chrome 4 ate up the most CPU, topping at an unpleasant maximum of 64 percent.  Firefox, on the other hand, showcased low usage (with no add-ons installed), though 3.6a1 was a bit more CPU hungry than 3.5.2.  Again, hopefully these issues will be resolved before release.

5.  Security:

Having looked at the resources used, its also important to look at what is being done with them.  We already concluded that Opera provides the most built in features (non-security) in our first review (though Firefox wins when add-ons are considered).  But what about security features?

The below table illustrates some highlights of these browsers' track record:

Browser Tab/Process Isolation Private Browsing Mode Popup Blocking Ad-Filtering (JS, Flash) Anti-Phishing Malware Blacklist Unpatched Security Flaws, Secunia Unpatched Security Flaws, SecurityFocus
Opera 9.6 No No Yes Yes, click required Weak Weak 0 2
Opera 10.0 No No Yes Yes, click required Weak Weak 0 2
Firefox 3.5 No Yes Yes Via add-on Moderate Moderate 0 0
Firefox 3.6 No Yes Yes Via add-on Moderate Moderate 0 0
Chrome 2 Yes Yes Yes No Weak Weak 0 0
Chrome 3 Yes Yes Yes No Weak Weak 0 0
Chrome 4 Yes Yes Yes No Weak Weak 0 0
IE 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes (via InPrivate Filter) Strong Strong 2 16
Safari 3 No Yes Yes Via add-on Weak Weak 0 0
Safari 4 No Yes Yes Via add-on Weak Weak 0 0

As you can see, security is a rather confusing topic to rate the browsers on.  On one hand, IE 8 offers an excellent private browsing mode, tab isolation, and great blacklisting of malicious sites.  On the other hand, its InPrivate Filter doesn't catch all ads.  IE 8 is also the most frequently attacked and exploited browser, though Microsoft puts great effort into patching as quickly as possible. 

Despite this, IE 8 for the very inexperienced/naive user is probably the best bet as it blocks more blatantly malicious sites than the rest of the field.  Microsoft-sponsored research puts this block rate at 81 percent versus the next closest competitor -- Firefox -- at 27 percent.  This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but Microsoft deserves praise for its progress on this front. 

Chrome offers good overall protection with tab isolation, a private browsing mode and less vulnerabilities, but it is victim to probably the most ads of any of the browsers.  Firefox is a close runner up to IE 8, especially when add-ons are considered.  However, it lacks tab isolation.  Opera and Apple have both put a fair deal of thought into their security efforts, but they just aren't as strong or focused as those of Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google.

Note: All benchmarks were performed in 32-bit Vista on a Sony VAIO laptop with 3 GB of RAM, a T8100 Intel Processor (2.1 GHz), and a NVIDIA 8400 GT mobile graphics chip. The number of processes was kept consistent and at a minimum to reflect stock performance.

Comments     Threshold

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

thrilling conclusion
By chaos7 on 9/8/2009 12:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am getting curious to see how he sums this browser war up. Use Opera because it is the best in terms of CPU and memory unless you compared it to FF 3.5 but only if you don't consider boot times and if you don't care about security, etc... Or maybe don't use IE 8 because its a memory/CPU hog although it is the most secure.

Only time will tell.

RE: thrilling conclusion
By StevoLincolnite on 9/8/2009 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 3
Personally, I won't give up Firefox for any other Browser... Why? Simple: Addons.

Gives you massive amounts of possibilities in order to customize your browsing experience, adding features and improving performance. (There are Addon's which increase browsing speed).

Regarding CPU and Memory usage, regardless of the machine I have owned ranging from an Atom, Pentium 3 Tualatin, Athlon XP, Core 2 Duo, Phenom 2 X4, with memory sizes ranging from 512mb to 8gb, I've never had an issue "Waiting" for the browser to launch or pages to render, perhaps I don't notice it, but it always feels fine to me, Internet speed and latency and the servers being accessed seem to play a larger role for me.

RE: thrilling conclusion
By Morphine06 on 9/8/2009 12:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
Web Developer add-on alone is worth using FF for me. Can't live without it.

RE: thrilling conclusion
By adiposity on 9/8/2009 3:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Firebug FTW

RE: thrilling conclusion
By foolsgambit11 on 9/9/2009 3:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
Check out Chrome 4's 'upcoming' extension system. It's certainly not up to FF's add-ons list yet, not by a long shot. But it's something to look forward to.

RE: thrilling conclusion
By Smilin on 9/8/2009 2:44:14 PM , Rating: 4
Or maybe don't use IE 8 because its a memory/CPU hog although it is the most secure

I just wanted to point out that the benchmark for IE8 appears to be wrong in regards to memory usage. When I do the same test I get 181-186 megs used rather than the half a gig shown in the benchmark.

RE: thrilling conclusion
By Alexstarfire on 9/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: thrilling conclusion
By Smilin on 9/8/2009 4:45:59 PM , Rating: 2

RE: thrilling conclusion
By Sazar on 9/9/2009 6:32:55 PM , Rating: 2

Typically memory usage under 3.5 was higher than my other browsers with multiple tabs and a long time open.

3.6 is much better but still has launch lag time compared to other browsers BUT it is probably the most robust build off FF I have used yet :)

Opera definitely works well too :D

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Related Articles

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