What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
98 Comments
- Kalessian, on 12/04/2008, -7/+48I'm nitpicking, but:
"the latest build [of webkit] is only available on Mac OS X."
No, the source is available, as it has to be since its based on KHTML, so I could easily build the "latest build" on any platform. Maybe he meant "the latest binary available for download from the webkit website"?
And how can you say which browser is faster after one measly javascript test? - clintmaher, on 04/21/2009, -9/+48Firefox is the bomb. End of.
- fitzy, on 12/04/2008, -5/+41These comparisons are crap, you can't compare software directly on different OS's....
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -4/+23That 0.3 seconds just convinced me to change browsers!
/s - YouAreDead, on 12/04/2008, -3/+20build = binary
- ctrlfreak13, on 12/04/2008, -1/+18Comparing different browsers on different operating systems is a huge cavet in his testing. I myself have run the SunSpider Javascript test on my MBP in both OS X and XP (boot camp, not in a vm and on a clean boot) and have seen significantly different times running the same browser in different OSs (usually Mac OS is faster, actually). This fault in his testing nullifies it entirely.
- svivian, on 12/04/2008, -2/+14I wish all these "speed tests" and "browser comparisons" were more comprehensive, i.e. included other browsers. Would have been useful to have IE8 and Opera in there for reference. I always find Opera faster than anything else, even Chrome.
- comrade693, on 12/04/2008, -0/+10They used a nightly build of WebKit, so it's probably newer than what is in Safari 4.
- drstock, on 12/04/2008, -5/+15Um, Chrome uses WebKit...
- noboot, on 12/04/2008, -3/+13It started speed wars, but no one has taken to heart their simplicity. More page, less "Chrome". Chrome is a joy to use and look at. It looks especially pleasing with Vista glass.
- jschrab, on 12/04/2008, -1/+10Um... you can't say "FireFox sucks balls" and "don't get me wrong it is a great browser" in the same sentience and have any creditability...
- Yarnage, on 12/04/2008, -0/+9Opera has _never_ used the WebKit engine. Why are people digging you up?
- palta38, on 12/04/2008, -0/+8"Opera uses webkit engine till 9.6 version. So no point in testing opera."
no, opera 9.6 was using presto 2.1.1, the alpha of opera 10 uses presto 2.2 - smmakira, on 12/04/2008, -5/+13Why not throw in Safari 4 preview and Opera 9.6 beta in too while we were at it?
- enicholas, on 12/04/2008, -2/+10Wait, why are you claiming he used different computers? You can run all three OSes natively on the same machine, so unless he says otherwise isn't that the safest assumption?
- PleaseJustDie, on 12/04/2008, -5/+12Only problem I have with this is it doesn't say the specs of the computers. He's using 3 different browsers on 3 different operating systems on 3 different computers. All of which could affect the speed at which these are performed. If he's on a 3ghz mac for webkit and slower ubuntu box for firefox and a slower still windows box for chrome it would invalidate the entire test. Core 2 duo vs Pentium 4 D or AMD can also result in huge differences with this kind of benchmark.
Even just differing operating systems can invalidate the tests because of how the overhead of that OS can affect the amount of processing power available. Or if he ran webkit on his apple and ran chrome on parallels, it all makes a difference. - megamod, on 12/04/2008, -10/+17I don't care if Chrome is last. I still appreciate them for starting this revolution.
- PezFr33k, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8This is a horrible benchmark!
There are three different OS platforms (windows, linux, & mac) for each, and no description if they are using the same (or comparable hardware). - comrade693, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7When you include IE, it tends to make the comparisons of the other browsers difficult to tell (there's a large gap).
- saikyan, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7I love breakfast. It's my favorite meal.
- comrade693, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6It turns out that Mozilla and WebKit were working on performance all the way back to early last year. Part of the reason why Firefox 3 went through so many betas was because they had a few JavaScript performance wins that they wanted to get beta coverage on.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5great quote :)
- enantiodromia, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5it was the bomb. the only thing keeping it special anymore is that fact it has way more extensions and plugins.
other than that, it's just a browser dude. - mhmandthen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Opera 9.6 beta? They're already out with 9.62
- Radan, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5http://webkit.org/
Webkit is open source. - mhmandthen, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Wait, your penis loads pages? NO WAI D00D
- DWillms, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4As others have stated, this is a joke of an article, at least conduct it on the same OS...
On XP I did a few of my own tests, they won't be exact since I didn't bother shutting down background programs etc, but close enough...
Chrome: 1066ms
FF3.0.4: 2998ms
Minefield Latest Nightly: 1283ms
IE7: 25847ms (ouch!) - undrgz, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4yes, but the javascript engine on chorme isn't the same, it's called v8.
- TWallaceWD, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5Buried as inaccurate. Tests conducted were ridiculous.
- jbmcb, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Depends on what you are testing for. It's perfectly legitimate to say a Gaussian blur on the same version of GIMP on the same image on the same hardware takes X seconds in Windows Vista and Y seconds in Ubuntu Linux.
Yes, there are hundreds of variables to control for, but you aren't testing for absolute system speed, you're testing for end user experience. - lynx44, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Why not? They're competitors. They're both the latest version of their browsers that are out right now. That's like saying you can't compare Windows 7 with OSX because MS is "3 versions behind."
- netzdamon, on 12/05/2008, -0/+4Bomb! Run!
- boozedrinker, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Dude.That died about 2 months ago. Get with it.
- absolut1983, on 12/05/2008, -0/+3Alpha 10, in fairness.
- Houdini91, on 12/04/2008, -2/+5No...
- MrViklund, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4And who cares???
- nunofgs, on 12/04/2008, -4/+7Well, Firefox might be faster but it still takes at least double the time to open a blank window on my desktop, and that's really what counts. I don't mind if Firefox is 0.2ms slower loading digg.com, but I do care about how fast I can get a window up and type that URL in the address bar.
... and in that regard, Chrome wins every time. - jeeky, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4But then it wouldn't be Firefox. The whole idea of Firefox is to use the open-source engine Gecko.
Using Webkit would be better (more css3 support) but it's just like comparing Linux to Windows or OS X. They have their own path. - Yooree, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2>>(NOM NOM NOM) fixed.
Oh, and don't ever do it again. That *****'s retarded, now and always. - daveisfera, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Why didn't they use a browser with the newest Webkit? Webkit is just a rendering engine and not a full browser, so it's not really a fair comparison to compare 2 full browsers to a stripped out rendering engine.
- HeyBob, on 12/04/2008, -2/+4WinXP sp3:
Firefox (3.0.4): 2840.6ms +/- 2.2%
IE (7.0.5730.11) 23655.4ms +/- 0.8% (ha-ha) - rileyjt, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3I agree that it is a win-win situation for us to have this kind of competition, but overall this comparison is a bit silly. 3 different computers, each running a different OS and each running unstable *alpha* builds? This kind of comparison is measuring much more than simply javascript speed and really is not all that relevant to your typical internet user like me.
- darkism, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3@jeeky: But Gecko blows, and WebKit is open source too.
- berational, on 12/04/2008, -3/+5Agree with fitzy above. This test is retarded. Compare three browsers on three different operating systems, maybe even different machines.
Thanks for the 3 completely different tests with weak correlation. I'm ready to change browsers now.
FWIW, I really like the chrome interface. - PleaseJustDie, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Even if he did use a Mac and had set it to be able to boot into OSX, Windows and Ubuntu, that still doesn't negate the differences in overhead brought on by the operating system itself though.
It also means that there still isn't enough information given by the writer to validate his point. If we have to make assumptions to his testing, then his findings aren't thorough and no where near conclusive.
What would have happened if he used the latest build for firefox for windows? Or if he used the Linux port of Chrome instead? Why did he chose to do it that way? There's too much possible variability and not enough information given. - deadmoo, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Yes, this is the worst browser benchmark I have seen. What is the point if all the tested operating systems differ as well. You are supposed to control all the other variables when doing comparisons like these.
- automan, on 12/04/2008, -5/+7Yeah... A memory bomb.
(typing this from firefox) - clickx, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2Um how about not using Chrome and using Chromium. Chromium is the ***** and the only browser I've used that gets 100/100 on the Acid 3. Minefield is pretty sweet too.
- saikyan, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2That sounds delicious to me. I don't know why people dugg you down. Huevos rancheros rock.
- enantiodromia, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3I did not love Chrome at first, but now it's all I use for Windows
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is