Chrome may be the faster bowser out there, but that is just because they didn't care to test Maxtho

reply to post by ArMaP


Sure, but I am just comparing speed here. I want the fastest browser. I don't see evidence that Opera is the fastest bowser.

I will now test using the webkit.org website, here. I was using The Google Javascript Benchmark before. I think the official webkit.org website is more reliable.

Here are the results:

Opera 12.00 (link):

Total 1138.0ms (mili-seconds)

FireFox 14.0.1 (link[/ url]):

Total 1260.8ms (mili-seconds)

Maxthon Browser v3.4.2.1000 ([url=http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B94,46,47,94,31,4 7,31,78,78,47%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B47,47,62,32,78,78,31,63,31,78%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B47,94,47,62,47,47,78,266,47,63%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:% 5B31,15,16,16,0,0,0,0,0,0%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B47,47,47,47,31,47,47,32,47,47%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B31,16,47,47,47,219,15,16,16,31%5D,%22acce ss-nsieve%22:%5B32,15,16,15,15,15,31,16,15,16%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B15,0,16,0,0,0,16,0,0,0%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B15,16,16,16, 16,16,16,16,0,0%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B0,15,15,16,16,16,15,16,16,16%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B31,16,15,31,31,15,31,31,16,31%5D,%22control flow-recursive%22:%5B16,0,16,15,16,0,16,15,0,0%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B31,32,31,219,15,31,16,16,47,47%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B15,16,31,15,32,16,32,31,15 ,16%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B16,31,47,31,47,15,31,32,16,16%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B47,63,62,47,46,78,47,63,46,62%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B63 ,250,47,47,47,47,62,78,47,47%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B15,15,16,15,16,16,0,15,0,0%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B63,62,94,78,78,78,78,63,62,62%5D,%22math -spectral-norm%22:%5B15,16,16,16,16,15,16,16,16,16%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B31,31,31,31,31,32,15,31,31,31%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B16,32,15,31,31,16,16 ,16,31,31%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B47,47,47,31,62,47,31,31,31,47%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B78,93,125,78,78,94,281,94,94,94%5D,%22string-unpack-code% 22:%5B140,156,140,156,297,109,109,157,328,141%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B110,94,78,78,78,125,94,79,94,78%5D%7D]link):

Total 1175.0ms (mili-seconds)

FireFox 15.0a2 (Aurora - Faster than Pale Moon / Current FireFox *UNSTABLE AND MAY CHANGE*) (link):

Total: 1120.5ms (mili-seconds)

Google Chrome 20.0.1132.57 m (link):

Total: 1649.9ms (mili-seconds)

So ArMaP was right, Opera is the winner, except for FireFox Aurora 15.0a but that is an unstable beta version of Fire Fox which will change over time so that doesn't count.

Time to switch from Maxthon to Opera.

Opera 12.00 seems to be faster than Maxthon but there are many glitches with JavaScript. It is unbearable in my opinion. FireFox15.0a2 (Aurora) seems to be faster than Opera 12.00 and Opera 12.50 (Beta).

I will do the retesting again on Opera 12.00, FireFox15.0a2 (Aurora), FireFox15.0b1 (Beta)... I will not be testing the current FireFox 14 because that is slower than Opera, so these will be the final three being tested since they are the fastest (for now):

Opera 12.00

Link

Total: 1145.8ms (milliseconds) [without turbo]- Total: 1141.2ms (miliseconds) [with turbo]

FireFox 15.0b1 (Beta)

Link

Total: 1083.1ms (milliseconds)

FireFox 15.0a2 (Aurora)

Total: 1072.6ms (milliseconds)

NOTE: Aurora (FireFox 15.0a2) automatically records your Aurora experience and sends it to Mozilla. This is because Aurora is experimental and therefore it is in an experimental environment where people are able to TEST it so that Mozilla can record the performance.

As for FireFox 15.0b1 (Beta) it has the same private policy as the stable and current FireFox 14.0.1 (I think).

So Beta is faster than the newest Opera 12.00 and it doesn't have JavaScript glitches like Opera.

Time to make an extra switch.

I really hope that this information helps people in their web-browsing experience. Please give more feed-back if you wish.

Chrome Version 22.0.1230.0 canary

Total: 1359.1ms

442 + 9 / 500 - HTML5 Test

Link

FireFox (Beta) 15.0b3

Total: 1084.9ms

331+ 9 / 500 - HTML5 Test

NOTE: Firefox will act even slower, especially on YouTube as you can see from the many complaints on the internet.

Link

Maxthon version 3.4.2.3000

Total: 1286.3ms


419 + 15 / 500 - HTML5 Test

Link

Maxthon 3.4.2.3000 is 72.8ms (milliseconds) faster than Chrome V. 22.0.1230.0
Chrome has 47 point higher score than Maxthon 3.4.2.3000 [HTML5 Test]

FireFox 15.0b3 is 274.2ms (milliseconds) faster than Chrome V. 22.0.1230.0
Chrome has a 111 point higher score than FireFox 15.0b3 [HTML5 Test]

Interesting results.

But are any of these alternative browsers (not FF and IE) colour managed? Colour management to me is the single most important thing.

reply to post by BagBing


What do you mean color management? Changing the colors (theme) of the browser? Most browsers support that feature... Maxthon has a night mode but the colors aren't changeable.

Two new web browser I'm testing. Yandex and Comodo Dragon, both are Webkit web browser. Webkit seems to be the best since Youtube is owned by Google and Google Chrome use Webkit. Webkit browsers seem to work the best with most websites...

peacekeeper.futuremark.com...

Yandex 1.0.1084.5403

716
HTML5 Capabilities 2/7


Comodo Dragon 22.0.4.0

784
HTML5 Capabilities 4/7

v8.googlecode.com...

Yandex 1.0.1084.5403

Score: 2763

Richards: 3760
DeltaBlue: 5058
Crypto: 3989
RayTrace: 4152
EarleyBoyer: 4833
RegExp: 711
Splay: 724
NavierStokes: 4341



Comodo Dragon 22.0.4.0

Score: 2652

Richards: 3834
DeltaBlue: 4591
Crypto: 3986
RayTrace: 3506
EarleyBoyer: 6139
RegExp: 635
Splay: 562
NavierStokes: 4537

www.webkit.org...

Yandex 1.0.1084.5403

Total: 972.1ms (milliseconds)


Comodo Dragon 22.0.4.0

Total: 1264.4ms (milliseconds)

Yandex is the winner. It is faster than Comodo Dragon and Maxthon. It has less HTML5 support, but YouTube and many other websites work perfectly fine with it.

Yandex combines the features and speed of Google Chrome with The Speed Optimization of Opera. A perfect match.

Yandex is new so most have not heard of it, but it is best to give it a try.

reply to post by arpgme


In the real world milliseconds in difference is not even noticeable.

To me protection is much more important than a few milliseconds faster page opening.

reply to post by ANOK


It's not just milliseconds, it can also be seconds, that was one test which test a specific area.

If you care about protection, doesn't it make sense to use the fastest browser and THEN put protection so that it doesn't slow it down much instead of putting protection on an slower web browser?

People are not rational they fall in love with their web browsers. I switch whenever something better comes along.

reply to post by arpgme


But even seconds in the real world don't make that much difference. I have a fast ADSL2 line but still get slowed down, it all depends on traffic and the site you're loading.

There is more to choosing a browser than speed. Ironically IE9 is supposedly the safest browser now. I use FF just because I prefer it, and don't see a few seconds faster to be a reason worth changing.

A study confirms Internet Explorer 9 is the safest web browser

reply to post by ANOK


Really? I heard Internet Explorer was the LEAST trustworthy. Maybe it was an older version...


Here are the newest test results for the newest version of these browsers. Chrome seems to be the fastest so far...

FireFox 19.2

JavaScript: 843.9ms +/- 11.2%
HTML5: 378/500

Maxthon v4.0.3.6000

JavaScript: 847.6ms +/- 5.3%
HTML5: 449/500


Avant 2013 build 21

JavaScript: 900.7ms +/- 14.4%
HTML5: 448/500


Ice Dragon 19.0.1

JavaScript: 884.4ms +/- 0.9%
HTML5: 378/500


Opera 12:14

JavaScript: 848.9ms +/- 0.4% (With Turbo: 865.3ms +/- 3.5%)
HTML5: 404/500

Chrome 25.0.1364.172 m

JavaScript: 827.6ms +/- 11.7%
HTML5: 463/500