http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/ ... ?TYPE=story&AT=339289417-139023437t-110000017c
Browser faceoff: IE vs Firefox vs Opera vs Safari
By Kai Schmerer, ZDNet Germany
May 29, 2008
URL: http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/software/internet/soa/Browser-faceoff-IE-vs-Firefox-vs-Opera-vs-Safari/0,139023437,339289417,00.htm
Web 2.0, with itscomplex sites and rich Ajax applications, is an increasingly demandingplatform for a browser. In this review feature, we look at how theleading browsers measure up.
When Tim Berners-Lee presented his employer CERN with the firstbrowser, World Wide Web, to facilitate information flow between thedifferent departments in the European nuclear research centre inGeneva, he little suspected that it would cause a revolution in theinformation age. Today, the browser is probably the most widely usedcomputer application.
However, the tasks performed by a web browser have changedsignificantly. As well as displaying text and images, the modernbrowser needs to accommodate technologies such as JavaScript, DOM andXML in Ajax-based programs. Even if you're not familiar with Ajax,you'll probably have used it via Google Maps, Google Mail or AjaxWrite;sites such as Flickr and Last.fm also make intense use of thistechnology. Ajax has even taken root in the business environment: forexample, 24SevenOffice is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) andCustomer Relationship Management (CRM) solution that runs in a webbrowser. The advantage of this Web 2.0 technology is platformindependence: you don't need a specific operating system or processorto run Ajax applications — just a compatible browser.
Web 2.0 applications and sites place the focus firmly on browserperformance. Anyone who still believes that the speed of your DSLconnection is the only potential bottleneck is gravely mistaken. Keyparts of Ajax applications run locally, which means that — all otherthings being equal — the speed of the browser will be crucial indetermining the user experience. For Ajax-based business applications,the browser becomes even more important because data will be accessedfrom within-firewall servers rather than the internet. Companiesdeploying such solutions will be able to improve employee productivityby paying attention to browser performance.
Test setup To test the performance of browsers when handling Web 2.0 technologies, we used the iBench 5.0 test suite and SunSpider, a Javascript benchmark.
iBench evaluates browser performance by measuring how fast HTML, XMLand JavaScript is handled. The web pages are held on a local webserver. SunSpider, which (unlike iBench) is available online,concentrates solely on JavaScript performance. Tests are grouped into nine categories,including 3D, bit operations, cryptography and string processing; thereare several tests within each group. The benchmark runs each testmultiple times and calculates an error range.
Obviously the speed of the hardware platform is a crucial variable.In our browser tests under Windows Vista and Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard, weused the following components:
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-X38T-DQ6 | | Memory | 4x 1GB Aeneon Xtune DDR3-1333 | | Processor | Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9650 (3.6GHz) | | Hard disk | Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB ST3750640AS | | Graphics card | ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT |
Windows Vista SP1: HTML, XML, JavaScript (iBench 5.0) The seven browsers we tested load HTML and XML/CSS pages underWindows Vista at a variety of speeds. According to iBench 5.0, Safari3.1 is the fastest browser and Opera 9.27 the slowest; the latter takesover twice as long as any other browser to load HTML pages. However,the beta version of Opera 9.5 performs significantly better, and is ona par with the middle-ranking browsers.
In the iBench 5.0 JavaScript tests, Safari 3.1 is again the fastestbrowser, while Microsoft's browsers bring up the rear inJavaScript/HTML DOM tests. The JavaScript tests also expose greaterperformance differences among the browsers than the HTML/XML tests: inthe JavaScript tests, the slowest browser is about 10 times slower thanthe fastest.
The various beta versions show significant performance improvementsin some tests. For example, Firefox 2.0.13 completed theJavaScript/HTML DOM test in 3.1 seconds, while the Firefox 3 Beta 5took only 0.65 seconds. The two Opera browsers show a similar pattern:Opera 9.27 was slowest in the JavaScript test (2.54s), while Opera 9.5Beta 4758 delivered the second best result (0.36s).
It should be noted that iBench 5.0's reported values for the Safaribrowser are underestimates of the actual timings, which we checkedmanually. The reason is the measuring methodology in iBench 5.0, whichuses the 'onload' event to signal that a page has been loaded: mostbrowsers load the page, decode images and run stylesheets and scriptsbefore firing 'onload'. Safari does not do this. There's no doubt thatApple's browser is fast, but it's not as far ahead of its competitorsas iBench 5.0 suggests — as our next test shows.
 Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
Windows Vista SP1: SunSpider JavaScript The SunSpider JavaScript benchmark shows Microsoft's current browserin a poor light: as in the iBench JavaScript/HTML DOM test, InternetExplorer 7 is by far the slowest of the group. Firefox fans will bepleased with the speed of version 2.0.0.13 compared to IE 7, but Opera9.27 and Safari 3.1.0 are the real winners here.
Things look different when we consider the beta versions. Microsoftimproves its position significantly with IE 8 Beta 1, although it'sstill the slowest of the betas. Meanwhile, Firefox, whose currentversion only manages second-last place, leaps to the top of the classahead of Safari with version 3 Beta 5.
The individual SunSpider JavaScript benchmarks show the strengthsand weaknesses of particular browsers, and where the beta versions showthe most improvements. The poor performance of Internet Explorer 7, forexample, is due to its slow string processing. IE 8 Beta 1 delivers asignificantly better result in this test and reels in some of thecompetition, although it remains slow compared to the other betas andSafari. The current version of Firefox is weak in string and 3Dprocessing and bit operations, but version 3 Beta 5 overcomes theseweaknesses to take first place in all of the tests.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Mac OS X 10.5.2: HTML, XML, JavaScript (iBench 5.0) According to Apple boss Steve Jobs, the company's Safari browser isthe fastest on the market. However, Apple has something of a historywith benchmarks: when the PowerMac G5 was introduced in 2003, forexample, the company was accused of tweaking its test system andhobbling rival Intel-based machines. Since then, of course, Apple hascome round to the attractions of Intel processors.
Jobs' statement that the fastest Safari browser is based on teststhe company has carried out using iBench 5.0. However, these benchmarkresults should be treated with caution: manual measurements with astopwatch show that Safari is not quite as fast as iBench suggests.This is because, as mentioned earlier, iBench uses the JavaScript'onload' event to determine page loading time, which Safari triggersbefore the page has in fact finished loading. Even so, despite thesecaveats, there's no doubt that Safari is indeed a fast browser.
Safari 3.1.0 is quickest in the HTML tests with a time of under 10seconds, placing it well ahead of Opera 9.27's 48 seconds. However, theSTAND Safari plug-in extends the load time to over 18 seconds — perhapsbecause it prevents the premature page-loading statement normallyreported by iBench. The beta version of Opera 9.5 manages to reduce theload time from over 48 seconds in version 9.27 to less than 20 seconds.In the XML/CSS test, Safari again takes first place — and here, theSTAND plug-in has no significant impact on performance. Opera brings upthe rear in this test, and this time the 9.5 beta brings no improvement.
Safari is the winner in the JavaScript tests too. These tests alsodemonstrate the benefits that browser development can deliver. Amongthe beta versions, Firefox 3 Beta 5 is particularly impressive comparedto its predecessor, reducing Firefox 2.0.13's 3.91 seconds to just 1.07seconds in the HTML/JavaScript DOM test. Opera and Safari also deliversignificant performance improvements in their respective betas.
 Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
Mac OS X 10.5.2: SunSpider JavaScript Of the current Mac OS X browsers, Safari 3.1 is clearly the fastestin the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark. However, Firefox 3 Beta 5 beatsApple's browser by a noticeable margin. Elsewhere, the Opera 9.5 betaimproves on its predecessor, although it cannot match the performanceof Safari and Firefox 3 Beta 5.
The individual tests show exactly how Firefox 3 Beta 5 hasoverhauled Safari, and where Opera needs to improve in order to catchFirefox and Safari. For example, Firefox 3 Beta 5 took 187 millisecondsfor the bit operations test, compared to the current version's 2,241ms.Opera 9.5 Beta also improves on the current version, but not to thesame extent.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Memory use As well as pure performance, it's important to consider thebrowsers' resource requirements. Although the CPU load is prettyconsistent among the browsers, this is not the case with memoryconsumption.
In the first test, a web site is loaded and memory consumptionmeasured. A second test measures the resources needed to load 10 tabbedsites. We chose sites without advertising, since the constantlychanging content of such sites does not allow for reproducible results:for example, one time you may get a simple image, while the next timethe page is loaded a Flash animation may appear.
With only one web site to display, the browsers use between 18.5MBand 35.3MB of memory under Mac OS X 10.5.2. Safari is the mostmemory-frugal, while Firefox is the biggest memory-hog. However, thepicture changes if ten sites are loaded at the same time. Now, Firefox3 Beta 5 leads the field with 76.2MB, followed by Safari with 93.7MB.Safari uses slightly more memory (98.1MB) if the STAND plug-in isinstalled. Opera 9.27 uses 134.5MB, while Opera 9.5 Beta uses 139.3MB —slightly more than Firefox 2.0.0.13 with 138.8MB.
Memory usage patterns vary widely under Windows Vista too. With onlyone website, Microsoft's browsers perform well: Firefox uses aroundtwice as much RAM as Internet Explorer, while Opera and Safari usearound three times as much. With ten sites loaded, the results arealmost reversed. Now IE brings up the rear with 143.7MB, while Firefox3 Beta 5 only uses 50.8MB. As with Mac OS, Firefox 3 Beta 5 is the mostmemory efficient. The Opera versions use 66.8MB (9.27) and 77.8MB (9.5Beta), while Safari and Firefox 2.0.13, with 113.3MB and 94MBrespectively, need much more memory — but still less than IE.
 Memory use in megabytes: shorter bars are better.
 Memory use in megabytes: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
 Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
Conclusion Safari is undoubtedly one of the fastest browsers available, even ifiBench 5.0 delivers slightly optimistic scores (the SunSpiderJavaScript benchmark does not seem to be affected). Under both Mac OS X10.5.2 and Windows Vista SP1, Apple's browser is a front-runner.
The worst-performing browser in our tests is Internet Explorer 7 —The SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, in particular, shows up thedeficiencies of Microsoft's current browser. Things may change withInternet Explorer 8, as the first beta version shows a significantperformance improvement. However, the competition is not standingstill, with new versions of Firefox (3) and Opera (9.5) closer torelease than IE 8.
Overall, and taking the performance of the beta versions intoconsideration, the browser performance rankings are as follows: Firefoxand Safari in a clear lead ahead of Opera and finally InternetExplorer. Firefox 3, due in June, promises very good performance andefficient memory usage. No browser used less memory to open multiplesites than the Beta 5 version of Firefox 3, and only a few sites failedto display correctly. Safari and Opera, however, are more likely toexhibit incompatibilities.
These tests show that when it comes to browser performance, there'splenty of scope for improvement. In some tests, we observed speedboosts of the order of 100 per cent between the current version and thelatest beta. |
发表于 2008-6-1 19:31
| 
发表于 2008-6-2 08:28
|