DailyTech - Browser War: Firefox 3.6a1, Opera 10.0, IE8, Safari 4, Chrome 4 Benchmarked Part II

Submit News

Internet Browser War: Firefox 3.6a1, Opera 10.0, IE8, Safari 4, Chrome 4 Benchmarked Part II
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 8, 2009 12:00 PM

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

Username
Password
remember me

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

"Best" Browser

By tmouse on 9/9/2009 8:44:24 AM , Rating: 2

The answer is simple, the "best" browser is the one you are most comfortable using. It's the same with operating systems. The outrageous claims about 1000's of man hours lost because of differences in browser speeds are pure FUD. 10000X more productivity is lost because of people twittering, or Googling "farting dog" or sending pictures of cats in silly costumes to 100 of their relatives or friends (who waste time staring at them or forwarding them or waste space by never deleting or reading them). For the average user you probably wouldn't save enough time by using the "best" browser to take a bathroom break. If you would save time you probably could save more by automating the process and remove the human factor all together.