Comments on: Speed test: Google Chrome beats Firefox, IE, Safari

Google's Chrome trounces Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari on speed tests for JavaScript, a key foundation for rich Web apps. But Google picked the benchmarks.

[birds08]

I download and uses Chrome in this morning ,i feel that browser can give me the fresh taste.

[pjk0]

Opera 9.52 is conspicuously missing. No surprise, since it has the highest combined score of the non-Chrome browsers on Google's javascript test suite. (Apple's Safari page also conspicuously omits recent versions of both Opera and Firefox in their misleading browser performance comparison graphic, which was based on tests from 5 months ago)

Once Google's product is real and not beta, and once it is loaded up with all of the usual functionality one expects (and bugfixes), then we'll see what the REALworld benchmark is.

As someone else mentioned, it's a pity that Google gets so much press coverage, when smaller companies like Opera are innovating most of the features that everyone else copies.

[markredf150]

one reason that there are still a lot of IE users is because a lot of businesses use nothing but IE. I work at OfficeMax and that's all they use is IE. what bothers me is how easily IE crashes or just doesn't seem to work at all. I wanted to download Firefox but I didn't want to get fired (no download policy). in my community college district, you can only use IE or Safari. i love Firefox, use it day in, day out on all my pcs and this Google Chrome (using it as I write this) seems pretty cool and I notice quite a speed difference. It's really amazing how far Google has come from the days of just putting a search engine together to being a full-blown, do-everything-run-on-solar-power-accommodate-its-employees-$465-a-share-monster of a company. Go Google

[The_Decider]

Lets see how well it does against real tests such as ACID3.

[Imalittleteapot]

It'll probably fail it just like IE and FF will. What's your point?

[rmcourtney]

So, if google givse my personal information to anyone.... esp the US Government... do I want to even think about using this browser? Hmmm.... let me think....

[Imalittleteapot]

Probably not. It was fun to try out and play with, but I won't be switching from FF as my main browser.At least not soon if ever. Especially not until they figure out what this EULA crap is really about.

[Dch48]

I couldn't care less about your benchmarks. I installed Chrome and timed page loading with a variety of pages. I found NO difference in loading times from my good old IE7.

[bobfox321]

Be very ready... (prediction)

This will somehow be the connection to Google's cell phone service world !!!!!

Hey Google kick the monopolistic m$ derriere once for me !

[phoxhound]

I did a quick comparison of physical memory consumption as tabs increase, Firefox vs. Chrome. At first it looks like Chrome will win: with only one tab open, Chrome uses about 10000K less memory. But up that to two tabs and Chrome is already over Firefox. By 10 tabs Firefox is using about 73000K, while Chrome is using about 155000K. Graph of the results available in screenshot form here:

http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k104/lopp115/?action=view&current=firefox.png

[Imalittleteapot]

Yeah that's because each tab runs in its own process for stability and security reasons. Plus probably some other reasons. However, we should draw a line between WASTING ram and USING ram. Lets take FF 2 as an example. FF2 used more ram than FF3, but actually ran slower. That was wasting ram because now FF3 uses less ram, is faster, and has other improvements.

So far Chrome seems to be using a lot of ram, but using it more wisely because it also runs much faster on my system. Would it run slower if it didn't use so much ram? Could it separate pages into their own processes if it didn't use so much ram? If it can't then the ram use is justified. If it can then they're wasting ram.

It does seem a little heavy though and it would not surprise me one bit if a beta program wasted too much ram. Go look at IE8s thread usage and then get back to me, but it's a beta too. You'll have things like that.

[dominicano1100]

its not faster that firefox 3.0.1 its fast but not as fast as fast as firefox
how about security,,,,,,, wait 2 to 3 for security tests and the lest see if is good!!!

[dominicano1100]

Wolverton: Google Chrome fast, stable, a bit tricky to use
GOOGLE'S NEW BROWSER BOASTS SOME NICE FEATURES, BUT FIREFOX BETTER
By Troy Wolverton
Mercury News




Chrome, Google's shiny new Web browser, has some eye-catching features, but I'm not ready to trade in Firefox for it.

I downloaded Chrome on Tuesday at noon, when it first became available. I haven't run any benchmark tests on it, but my impression is that it's generally about as fast as Firefox, which is my everyday browser. However, I had a hard time figuring out how to do simple tasks like printing in Chrome, found it more difficult to search sites other than Google and was frustrated that I can't yet use it on my Mac at home.

The big difference you notice with Chrome right away is that it doesn't look like Firefox ? or any other Web browser. It doesn't have a menu bar, and there's no way to add one to it.

Instead, at the top of the Chrome program window, you'll find the browser "tabs" for each Web page you have open. In order to change Chrome's settings, print the page you're on or clear your cache, you have to click on one of two icons located near the location bar.

As Google developers describe it, their idea was to emphasize the "content" that you'd access through Chrome, not the browser program or its features. They thought the best way to do that was to keep Chrome's interface ? the buttons, options and icons ? to a minimum.



The problem is that a minimal interface makes it difficult to figure out how get the browser to do what you want it to. In Firefox, if I want to, say, create some folders for my bookmarks, I go to the "bookmarks" menu option and click on "organize bookmarks." Easy enough.

In Chrome, though, it's not so clear. There's an "other bookmarks" button, but clicking on it gives you your list of bookmarks. Through trial and error I finally figured out that I needed to right click on one of the buttons in my bookmark toolbar and select "add page" or "add folder."

I mistakenly clicked on "open all bookmarks" ? the top choice when you right click ? resulting in dozens of browser tabs being opened at once. The good news is that I was able to close all those tabs without either Chrome or my computer crashing.

Other commands that are easy to find in the menu bars of Internet Explorer or Firefox are similarly difficult to uncover in Chrome. If I want to view the underlying code of a page, for instance, do I click on the "page" icon, the "settings" icon, or right click on the page? (Answer: right click ? although you find the same command buried in a submenu under the page icon.)

The minimal interface also means that instead of having both an address and a search bar, Chrome has combined the two. So, if you want to search Google, you type in a keyword into the same area you'd type in a Web address.

Google is Chrome's default search engine, but the program asks when you are installing it if you want to choose a different one. You can also set a different default search after you have the program up and running by tweaking its settings.

Additionally, Chrome helps you use search engines built into other pages. To search for William Shatner's entry in the Internet Movie Database, for instance, you'd type in IMDB's address, then hit tab and type in "William Shatner."

In Firefox ? and in the new Internet Explorer ? you can add a whole slew of different search engines to your search box. When searching a particular site, instead of having to type that site's address, you simply select the one you want.

Chrome also lacks a progress bar. So, unlike with IE or Firefox, you don't have any sense of how much of a Web page you've already downloaded ? or how much more you have left to go.

Another shortcoming of Chrome is that it currently runs only on a Windows operating system, though Mac and Linux versions are in the works.

But despite its shortcomings, Chrome has some features I really like. It seems as fast as ? and more stable than ? Firefox. I've noticed that Firefox can choke on Javascript, the coding language widely used to add buttons or other interactive elements to Web pages, and never completely load particular pages.

Chrome's Javascript engine was designed from the ground up to run faster than other engines and in a way that doesn't stop the browser from working if the Javascript engine gets hung up on something.

I love tabbed browsing, and often have half a dozen or more tabs open at once. But having so many tabs open can slow down your browser. And sometimes a coding error or script problem will bring your entire system to a crawl.

With Firefox, you generally have to guess which tab is causing the problems. Not so with Chrome. It has a "task manager" similar to the one for Windows that allows you to see how much memory or processor capacity each tab or plug-in is consuming and to shut down the ones gobbling up too much of your computer's resources.

[Kwasiowusu]

Deceptive headline. Javascript is precisly what slows down plenty of computers when they are running multiple browswer windows.
In the real world, Chrome is by far a bigger resource hog browser than IE 8.
Here are extracts from test conducted in REAL LIFE enviroment by the Associated Press:

"So which one comes out smelling like roses? The beta of Internet Explorer 8, released just last week.

When playing a YouTube video, Firefox 3 took up 95 percent of the CPU time on a three-year old laptop running Windows XP.

Chrome came in at 60 percent - still too much. Especially since Google owns YouTube! You'd think it could make its browser work well with that site in particular.

Internet Explorer barely broke a sweat, taking up just a few percent.

When I told each browser to load eight pages, some of which were heavy with Flash and graphics, Firefox took 17 seconds and ended with a continuous CPU load of 50 percent. That means it took up half of my available processing power, even if I wasn't looking at any of the pages.

Chrome loaded them the fastest, at 12 seconds, and ended with a CPU load of about 40 percent.

Internet Explorer 8 took 13 seconds to load, but ended with no CPU load at all.

So while Chrome's performance is a little better than that of Firefox, in practical terms, it is far less useful, because it lacks the broad array of third-party add-ons programs like Flashblock that make Firefox so customizable"

IE 8 easily smokes Chrome in every department that really counts.
Meanwhile CNET can continue to pass on Google propaganda on some artificial, contrived, Google test, that has little efect in real life use.

[pauljweighell]

Unfortunately perhaps I find similar poor performance results behind the smile. Chrome looks good in costume jewellery but behind those pretty little Google eyes is a girl who left school far too early. Seemingly no Java support at all for multi-layered menus based on XML site maps. Chrome seems to have a racing version of Java with much of the guts degutted. OK it may be slick on a few child driven apps but on meaty work and business sites it sucks. Google will also take support away from FireFox but it still leaves IE well in the front due if nothing else to IEs prodigious support for the basics.

[abeen0]

Ya, I am feeling that Chrome is really fast than other existing browsers I use, my favorite is Firefox though. I also feel google chrome tab browsing is quite attractive and fast.

--
abeen
http://abeen0.blogspot.com

[nonicks]

I am not quite sure about google's own test results and how CHROME fared in their labs.

However, when using it as my default browser today.. I had to turn back to IE8 Beta 2, several times.

Frankly speaking, there is hardly any difference between Chrome and Firefox. Seems like Google has had full liberty of using Firefox code libraries. Google seems to have copied as much of Firefox that sometime it acts like just a new SKIN on firefox.

I liked what CHROME did to their screen real-estate. and also that auto-hide Status bar.

(please know I am writing this comment using Chrome)

However, their Javascript engine is very sluggish.

I doubt the purpose of Google's tests because, in real world, I found Firefox faster than CHROME hands down any time. I tried FACEBOOK.com and CHROME stuggled like a old world browser when opened barely 2 tabs of facebook (I was using new design of Facebook). I had to return to IE8 Beta 2 to do rest of my facebook work. I am sure Firefox could have handled it too.

tried CHROME on HTMLGURU.com. and CHROME struggled again. (well couldn't see that page on IE8 beta 2, coz it's not supported on that site)

Tried HINDUSTANTIMES.com , CHROME was slowest of all IE8 beta2, Firefox 3 then last was CHROME.

I am not quite sure what Google wants to achieve with this browser thing. may be they just want to spoil party for MS coz am 100% sure.. if the same product was launched by a startup and not by google... that product would have doomed from day 1 and VCs would have taken their money out.

Sorry to say.. third grade product from google. and plus - without any purpose.
I wish they would have improvised on firefox to do something good.

In my view - Google is using every trick from Microsoft's evolution book at 10 times the speed of MS. but hey in 10 times sooner Google will be hated in same line as MS.

too bad.

Yep, it's too bad your computer is so botched up. I tried each of the websites you referred to with Chrome and Firefox and found no difference. However, I did notice that some of those websites have code that is specifically designed for IE. So pointing to websites that use proprietary Microsoft features and complaining that non-MS browsers don't work properly is pretty deceptive.

Shame on web designers who only design websites the Microsoft way. Short sighted at the very least. I thought we'd gotten over that kind of crap eight years ago.

[vibhaas]

welldone GOOGLE..GR8.

[theNajam]

WOW!!
Google rocks!

[nickbrennan]

I have been using IE8B2 and FF3. To ME and IMO and YMMV, Chrome is the cats meow. Faster then both IE8 and FF3 IMO. Feels very very speedy.

Also the tab's bar up top is very "just right"

My #1 for now.

[vk-cnetnews]

This may rule other Browsers....

[pauljweighell]

Looks good but I prefer a working browser please !

ASPX/JAVA drop down menus based on XML site maps don't work at all on any of my apps although they do work well under both IE and Firefox so my customers will still need IE/Firefox.

I suspect its fast for Java because they left a lot out to make the benchmarks look good.

[Rolker]

But how many sites use Java V8? If it is much slower on other sites, why should you move to Chrome? Maybe a test should show how this browser behaves generally, and not with sites that it was built specifically for them.

[godsfantasy]

I believe that Google's browser will soon realize that its JavaScript engine is plagued with security issues.