

Chrome vs Firefox 3.6 vs Safari vs Webkit: Chrome Wins Again - sandosh
http://www.manu-j.com/blog/chrome-vs-firefox-vs-safari-vs-webkit/382/

======
taitems
Yeah, but it still renders text funny when css effects such as text-shadow are
applied to it. The anti-aliasing goes all early Windows Safari on you.

~~~
taitems
Cool, keep downvoting. But what I'm saying is that performance etc always
comes at the cost of something. In this case: font-rendering and anti-
aliasing. Firefox renders text-effects beautifully!

------
MikeCapone
Has anyone else had a problem with Chrome where you hard-drive starts seeking
(audible noise of it working) and never stops?

I thought turning off the anti-phishing feature would fix it, but I recently
got it again. I've seen it happen on both Macs and Windows PCs.

~~~
wgj
Yes, if you close the right instance, it stops. but there doesn't seem to be
any correlation with whatever page was in that instance. I've also had issues
with an instance suddenly using 20-50% of the CPU for no reason.

Chrome is now my primary browser, but this one issue has made me consider
switching back to Firefox.

------
makecheck
JavaScript relative performance is still a bit meaningless right now, because
market share still counts for more. If you _were_ to write a web app that
required the speed of Chrome, it would still suck for most visitors.

This performance mainly showcases Google's platforms (e.g. some netbook with
Chrome OS?). Google can write bleeding-edge, speed-dependent web apps, since
the whole user experience is based on Chrome.

For everyone else, this doesn't help much yet, but it does mean that the
future is bright. Historically Apple and Mozilla have responded well to
friendly jabs in benchmarks, so they'll surely work hard to make the next one
look much better. And that's when the real fun begins. :)

~~~
megaduck
Actually, these numbers are quite significant to anybody doing mobile web
development. Android, iPhone, and WebOS all use Webkit-based browsers.

Javascript performance is particularly relevant for Palm, since _all_ of their
applications are JS based.

There's also certain audiences (like HN), where IE is a fractional minority.
IE is still keeping us back in the overall market, but there are certain
emerging niches where these benchmarks really matter.

------
richcollins
Important to view these results in context:

<http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v3/run.html>

~~~
megaduck
That suite is out of date. They're probably testing using v5, the latest
version.

<http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v5/run.html>

------
timdorr
It's great that Javascript is fast and all, but what about the HTML rendering
engine? What about the network layer? What about the whole package? I remember
a while ago that Safari had an SSL bug that failed to cache certain session
data and therefore all SSL sites were dog slow, despite the rendering engine
being fast.

Is anyone doing any real-world benchmarking with actual websites? But since
throwing in the Internet to the mix would throw off the results, perhaps a
locally hosted web server to do the actual serving? Create a clone of several
popular sites locally, serve them up to the browsers of choice, time the
results, ???, profit!

------
atlbeer
Curiously? Does anyone know why IE8 is left out of comparisons like this? I'd
love to know how it ranks for JS performance against the "other" browsers

~~~
megaduck
According to all the benchmarks I've seen, IE8 is about an order of magnitude
(10x) slower than any of the Webkit browsers. They're so far behind that you'd
have to significantly rescale the graphs to include them.

Here's an example of a recent Sunspider benchmark:
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138459/IE8_runs_10_t...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138459/IE8_runs_10_times_faster_with_Google_plug_in)

------
dschobel
is it really newsworthy when benchmarks reiterate the status quo?

