
Browser Benchmark Battle October 2016: Chrome vs. Firefox vs. Edge - vezycash
http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/25/browser-benchmark-battle-october-2016-chrome-vs-firefox-vs-edge/view-all/
======
hackuser
All the major browsers perform well enough for the great majority of users.
For me the differentiator is privacy with regard to the browser vendor and
websites I visit, and for that I trust only Mozilla because of their mission
and track record (and I use some add-ons).

I've read that Chrome is more secure, in terms of integrity when attacked,
which of course can help privacy (i.e., confidentiality). I've read that it's
due to Chrome's security model, but I'd be interested if someone would be
willing to describe it in more detail.

~~~
mastazi
> For me the differentiator is privacy [...] for that I trust only Mozilla
> [...] (and I use some add-ons).

What FF add-ons and/or configuration do you recommend? I use Privacy Badger,
AdBlock Plus and HTTPS Everywhere.

In Firefox Options, I clear cookies at the end of every session.

If I had Private Mode always active, then I could use Firefox's own Tracking
Protection, but I thought Privacy Badger is enough and is made by the EFF
which I trust.

~~~
JoshMnem
Try Self-destructing Cookies, BetterPrivacy, Decentraleyes, Google Search Link
Fix, Random Agent Spoofer, and RefControl.

Chrome gives far less control over privacy. (Consider the business motivations
of Mozilla vs. Google.)

You can also add a file called user.js to your Firefox profile folder with
these settings to make it better:

[https://gist.github.com/j127/8627698e47612eaf9d2bf4c633bbbb4...](https://gist.github.com/j127/8627698e47612eaf9d2bf4c633bbbb46)

Anything in about:config can be overridden in user.js.

You can use multiple Firefox profiles to launch separate browser profiles,
each with different extensions. (I have an alias for that: `alias ff="firefox
-P"`)

Ctrl-shift-p is a fast way to enter private browsing mode, which, by default,
will keep your privacy extensions enabled. (You can ctrl-shift-n in
Chromium/Chrome if you need to turn off all extensions for a quick look at
something.)

Firefox for Android is also the only mobile browser that allows add-ons, so
you can get your privacy tools and customizations there too.

Also check out the Firefox developer console. Go into settings and check the
boxes until it's how you want it.

~~~
ryuuchin
> (You can ctrl-shift-n in Chromium/Chrome if you need to turn off all
> extensions for a quick look at something.)

You can keep extensions enabled in Chrome as well when using incognito. You
just have to explicitly enable it on the extensions menu for which extensions
you want to keep enabled.

~~~
JoshMnem
I generally don't do that, because I want one way to open a browser that has
no extensions.

So I can go to Chrome (alt-6 to get to that virtual desktop) and then ctrl-
shift-n to get a plain browser.

Firefox keeps the extensions on by default, so if I need to login to one site
with different accounts, I can use ctrl-shift-p for a private window, or `$
firefox -P` for a different browser profile.

------
pmontra
Be sure to look at the numbers in the charts. Those bars there don't use the
full axis and suffer from distorsion. It's the #1 don't in the list at
[http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/learn-
more/char...](http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/learn-more/chart-
dos-and-donts)

~~~
lomnakkus
Jebus, you weren't kidding... that's a _lot_ of distortion.

In one example we're talking a visual difference of >50% which amounts to an
_actual_ difference of 80 "points" out of 10000, so <1%. (No, that's not a
typo on my part.)

You have to wonder of most of the visual difference isn't actually just
statistical noise at that point.

------
pragmatic
Edge may be fast in benchmarks but in real life it's a buggy mess. Web pages
look terrible and "fuzzy". Local testing with visual studio is broken. It
works poorly with office 360 and bing maps.

This is just my experience. Only safari comes close to being a big a pain in
the ass.

~~~
dingo_bat
To be honest, all metro style apps have the problems you described. Also,
there are minor oddities that bug me. For example, while switching desktops,
the edge window will appear blank for a split second before filling up with
the content. This happens every time. I don't think it has anything to do with
memory.

~~~
agumonkey
Latest Win10 update replaced the permission dialog box with the metro
equivalent, keyboard shortcut lost, I cried a little inside.

------
cpeterso
Microsoft has been accused of "cheating" on SunSpider before because IE/Edge's
dead-code elimination optimizations recognizes particular code patterns in
SunSpider:

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2010/11/lies-d...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-benchmarks-is-ie9-cheating-at-
sunspider/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913102](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913102)

------
lern_too_spel
Some plots start the y axis at 0, and some do not. The "Oort Online" plot is
especially misleading.

~~~
magicalist
Yeah, these all desperately need to start at 0. The magnitude of the
differences in a lot of these really don't matter much.

~~~
allendoerfer
The WebXPRT test even seems to have a margin of error and Chrome and FF are in
each others range.

I would like to see what they did to ensure a clean system state and whether
they repeated the tests and averaged the results or just showed the first one.

------
DonCullen
Would have been good to see Safari and Opera in the assessment too.

~~~
mastazi
As it was mentioned in another comment, you either leave out Safari or Edge,
since there is no OS where both are available. Obviously, in order to obtain a
meaningful comparison, you need to run all your tests on same OS and same HW
specs.

~~~
matt4077
You could easily use the same hardware, and maybe run Chrome in both OS –
giving you a shared reference point. It'd also make the comparison useful to
people using OS X.

Edit: I just ran the JetStream benchmark on OS X (El Cap). Results:

\- Safari 10.1: 306.25 ± 5.8662

\- Chrome 56: 198.77 ± 10.059

\- Firefox 49: 234.56 ± 19.496 (ran it a second time after update: 235.04 ±
6.0682)

Their results:

\- Chrome: 184 ± 2

\- Firefox: 154 ± 4

\- Edge: 219 ± 5

~~~
mastazi
Yes, this would be interesting indeed.

------
ry_ry
The Edge JS performance is interesting for me wrt serverside rendering -
previous benchmarks of the engines running on node (rather than the browser)
I've seen have had V8 edging ChakraCore out on Octane circa May this year.

If this still the case? The relative Chakra performance looks pretty strong
here.

------
tambourine_man
Sunspider was developed by WebKit and yet its browser is not featured on the
benchmark

~~~
TheCoreh
There's no version of Safari for Windows, or of Edge for Mac. So you need to
leave one of these out when comparing on the same hardware/os combo.

~~~
frik
Chrome and Safari are used by most users (on mobile and notebook/PC).

Both should be included in such benchmarks. Firefox is kind of popular on
desktop, and IE11 is still pretty common if you look at corporate users.

~~~
wolfgke
> Chrome and Safari are used by most users (on mobile and notebook/PC).

Statistics for Notebook/PC:

> [http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-
> monthly-201509...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-
> monthly-201509-201609)

This shows Safari has only a market share of 4,75%.

For mobile: As long as it is not possible to either run Safari under another
mobile operating system or Apple allows allocate executable memory on iOS to
let other browsers implement JIT there is no meaningful way to compare mobile
browsers (in particular Safari),

------
andrewclunn
No css variable support = no thank you edge.

~~~
Zachery
Soon: [https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
edge/platfor...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
edge/platform/status/csscustompropertiesakacssvariables/)

------
r3dn3r
this guys work for Microsoft..... so predictable...

------
qwertyuiop924
FF's JS perf is just embarassing. Hopefully, when the new optimizations land
(they're working on some now, IIRC) this will be improved.

