Rajbir Singh | With the release of Opera 9.5 & Firefox 3 in the past few days, the browser war has once again begun. Apple released Safari 3.1 for Windows with big claims which started ‘who’s the fastest’ war & now all three claiming to be the fastest browser.
I am going to test Internet Explorer 7 (as Internet Explorer 8 is in beta stage), Firefox 3, Opera 9.5 and Safari 3.1.
What I’ve used in the test:
Operating System- Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 x64
Processor-AMD Turion X2 64bit 1.70 GHz
Memory (RAM)- 1.50 GB
Internet connection-128 Kbps broadband
Stop Watch- Casio (Digital)
Tests:
These are the reference snapshots of the Acid tests (2 & 3) which a browser must display in order to pass the test:
Internet Explorer 7:
Internet Explorer 7 loaded pretty fast, second only to Safari 3.1. It really lacks web standards support as it could only pass Acid 1 test and failed badly in Acid 2 & Acid 3 tests.
Internet Explorer 7 performed badly in JavaScript test too, Here’s what Internet Explorer 7 scored:
There is no thumbnail preview for tabs, no recently closed tabs history & lacks download manager too. As we all know, It is also more prone to malwares & spywares as well.
The memory usage was the lowest when one tab was opened, however it was the highest when four websites were opened in four tabs.
Processor usage, when idle, was 4-7 %, which is also high compared to Opera 9.5 & Firefox 3.
It took more time than Opera 9.5 & Firefox 3 when loading http://techiesrealm.com & fastest while loading http://thinkdigit.com/forum when the cache was empty. It was slowest, in both, when loading pages which were already in cache.
Firefox 3:
Firefox 3 took more time to load than Internet Explorer. It is very much web standard compliant. Firefox 3 passed Acid 1 & Acid 2 test but failed in Acid 3 test. However the results of Acid 3 test were pretty much better than Internet Explorer 7.
It preformed very good in JavaScript test. Have a look at it’s score:
Like Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3 has no thumbnail previews for open tabs. It lists recently closed tabs which can be very helpful if you accidentally close a tab. Firefox 3 also has a decent download manager which supports pausing of downloads, not to mention the huge library of addons. Firefox has improved security in this version & the platform native user interface is one of the best things in Firefox 3.
The memory usage was a little bit more than Internet Explorer 7 when one tab was opened however it was lowest amongst all when websites in four tabs were opened.
Processor usage when idle was 2-5%, which is the lowest in all the browsers.
It was second to Opera 9.5 while loading http://techiesrealm.com & was second to Internet Explorer while loading http://thinkdigit.com/forum when the cache was empty. It was second to Opera & almost matched Safari while loading pages which were already in cache.
Opera 9.5:
Opera 9.5 took the highest time to load compared to all other browsers. Opera 9.5, like Firefox 3, has improved on web standards front. It passed Acid 1 & Acid 2 tests but failed in Acid 3 test. However Opera 9.5 scored highest in Acid 3 test.
Opera 9.5 was the fastest in JavaScript test. Here’s the JavaScript test score of Opera 9.5:
Unlike its counterparts, Opera 9.5 shows thumbnail previews for all open tabs & like Firefox 3 it provides a list of recently closed tabs. The placement of the recently closed button is next to address bar, which is better than Firefox 3. Firefox 3 lists recently closed tabs in History menu. Opera 9.5 has the best download manager which supports pausing, resuming of downloads. You can also enter address directly in Transfers window to start downloading. This version of Opera has some problems with buttons on webpages. The size of the button appears smaller than the text written on it.
Opera 9.5 used more memory than Firefox but lesser than Internet Explorer 7 & Safari 3.1.
The processor usage, when idle, was 2-5 %, which is the lowest & is same with Firefox 3.
It was the fastest while loading http://techiesrealm.com & almost matched Safari as the slowest browser while loading http://thinkdigit.com/forumwhen the cache was empty. Opera 9.5 was blazing fast when loading pages which were already in cache.
Safari 3.1:
Safari 3.1 was the fastest while loading itself. Safari 3.1’s web standards support is similar to Opera 9.5 & Firefox 3. It passed Acid 1, Acid 2 test & failed in Acid 3 test. Acid 3 test score was a little better than Firefox 3.
Safari 3.1 took more time than Firefox 3 & Opera 9.5 in JavaScript test. Here’s how it performed in JavaScript test:
Safari 3.1, like Internet Explorer 7 & Firefox 3, doesn’t show preview thumbnails for open tabs. It also has no recently closed tabs feature. The download manager is a decent one. The user interface is pretty much cool with the bluish buttons & scroll bars. However some some displays do not properly display text in Safari 3.1 as it appears smudged.
Safari took a lot of memory as compared to its counterparts & was less than only Internet Explorer 7.
The processor usage, when idle, was the highest.
It was second last while loading http://techiesrealm.com & was the slowest browser while loading http://thinkdigit.com/forum when the cache was empty. There was not much time difference between Safari 3.1 & Opera 9.5 when loading pages which were already in cache.
Conclusion:
Have a look at the graphs of the browser tests:
The browser load time:
Memory Usage:
Average Processor Usage (Idle):
Website Loading:
Loading of Think Digit Forum:
Loading of cached pages:
These graphs prove that it is a tough fight between Firefox 3, Opera 9.5 & Safari 3.1. Internet Explorer 7 is a clear loser in terms of features & web standards. I really hope Internet Explorer 8 will catch up with the rest three.
Now, for the winner title I’ll have to admit it’s a tie between Firefox 3 & Opera 9.5. They’ll have to share the crown. As far as Safari 3.1 is concerned, I must say it is not a loser. It gave a very tough fight to these two & lost out in memory & font display departments although the overall difference is not huge.
Choose your poison!
Acid tests conducted on http://acidtests.org, JavaScript tests on http://celtickane.com
thats an exhaustive review, almost to the perfection.
I like FF, my score was too 77 :p
By T on June 20th, 2008 at 4:31 amYou should’ve included Safari 4.0 Developer Preview in the test. It passes the Acid3 test (100/100), will completely screw every other browser when it comes to Javascript performance and it supposed to be fairly lighter on the system.
Even Safari 3.1, I feel, was dealt with unfairly—particularly that comment about it lacking in the font display department. I’m sorry, Rajbir, but you’re just plain wrong about that. I have a Windows PC in my house running both Safari and Internet Explorer and Safari’s font rendering is way better with font smoothing enabled (and ClearType enabled for Internet Explorer).
I admit that it’s heavy on resource usage (and always has been), but it completely rules in every other field. The rendering speed, for example, is definitely faster than all other browsers (though your charts seem to disagree).
Of course, it’s all very subjective anyway, so there’s really not much point to this browser war thingies. Good post though.
(That “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” option should be disabled by default.)
By Aayush Arya on June 20th, 2008 at 5:05 am@T- Thanks
@Aayush- I assure you that I wasn’t unfair with any particular browser. I myself, switched to Firefox after these tests even though I never thought of ditching IE & Opera.
Safari didn’t display fonts properly on both of the displays I own (Remember my query on forum?). I’ve tried changing every display setting in Safari but it wasn’t as clear as FF/IE/Opera.
I tested the rendering speed of all the browser thrice & there was no noticeable difference in the three tests. So no question arises of some problem while testing Safari.
I didn’t test any beta version of any of the browsers. Even IE 8 Beta is much better in all the departments than IE 7. But I chose only to test final releases. Don’t worry I’ll test IE 8 & Safari 4 too.
I, once again, assure you that the results aren’t partial. I’ve not been paid by any of the software companies. I am & my thoughts are not for Sale.
Thank you for your valuable comment!
By Rajbir Singh on June 20th, 2008 at 5:16 amNice article. You really put a lot of effort into it.
By Pallab on June 20th, 2008 at 9:08 amIn my experience though Opera and Safari are the fastest followed by Fx and then Ie.
The shoot-out does look really professionally done, but it is unfair. You are comparing latest offerings of Mozilla & Opera to an older version of IE.
But the article has been really well presented.
By Manan on June 20th, 2008 at 9:18 am@Pallab- Thank you. I had to put in multiple hours which spanned across 2 days. But I am happy with my efforts.
@Manan- I had no other option. Don’t worry, it’ll be done again when IE 8 will be released.
By Rajbir Singh on June 20th, 2008 at 11:52 amYou could have used IE 8 Beta.
By Manan on June 21st, 2008 at 12:21 amThen I would have to test Safari 4 too. Sorry no beta testing.
By Rajbir Singh on June 21st, 2008 at 12:24 amPut the digg button here itself.
By Manan on June 21st, 2008 at 1:19 amAlso there’s a difference between developer’s preview and public beta.
By Manan on June 21st, 2008 at 1:20 am@ Manan- I’ve now put Share This button. Thanks.
By Rajbir Singh on June 21st, 2008 at 1:50 amHave you ever used IE on a 24″ display? The buttons on the toolbar are not customisable, so the refresh button is on one side, and the stop button goes right to the other side (owing to the windows way of maximizing everything). Plus the interface looks really cluttered.
The only two browsers I would consider are Firefox and Safari. I haven’t come across any websites that don’t work with these two browsers. Opera on the other hand always needs that helping hand, so it can’t survive as the lone browser.
And yes, this notify me via followup should be unchecked by default.
By Milind on June 21st, 2008 at 8:00 amApart from load time, javascript performance, resource usage, rendering CSS and JavaScript is a big issue. In both cases, IE is a loser.
By Rohan Shenoy on June 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pmBoy.. I’ve started liking Opera more than anything else after the 9.5 release!
Professional looking tests.. good job! 
By Ani (infra_red_dude) on June 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm@Milind, Rohan, Ani- Thanks for your comments
By Rajbir Singh on June 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 amExcellent article!
By Vaibhav on June 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 amI am completely satisfied with all of your RESULTS.
Opera Rocks!
Rajbir, can you provide a javascript performance bar chart because these days Web 2 makes heavy use of javascript.
From my experience, It seems Safari(I am using 3.x for Windows) is the most desirable.
By Rohan on August 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pmHi Rohan,
By Rajbir Singh on August 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 amI’ve provided javascript performance test results too or do you mean something else?
I actually meant those cute graphs
By Rohan on August 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 amAlright, I’ll do it soon. Thanks
By Rajbir Singh on August 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am[...] was wondering what other people thought of Chrome and came across an article where a person tested and compared firefox, ie7, opera and safari. I then did some of these tests myself, comparing firefox to ie7 to ie8 to safari and to chrome. [...]
By dryfly.ca » Google Chrome - my experience with the beta on September 4th, 2008 at 4:59 amawesome…
By VKP on September 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pmOpera is nice , but things dont always come across as nicely they do in firefox .
Nice detailed comparison .
By aritra on October 25th, 2008 at 9:30 pmHello Aritra!
Well I use either FF or Opera and I like both if them.
Thanks for your comment.
By Rajbir Singh on October 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pmI am loving opera these days, after there 9.6x release.
By Rohan Shenoy on October 27th, 2008 at 11:11 pmFF My favorite
By Anish K.S on May 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm