Chrome for Mac Beta Nearly Matches Safari in JavaScript Benchmarking

[AidenShaw]

i wonder where the latest IE compares

Believe it or not, IE 8 is actually a huge step forward.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx​

The article says that overall browser performance is more than just one synthetic benchmark - all functions of the browser need to perform well for the best user experience.

If all the fast Javascript engine does is get you to the beach ball faster, it's not that useful.


The page also contains a link to a Mozilla developer's lament on Acid 3 - The Missed Opportunity of Acid 3. Some clips from that link:

...We’re still taking fixes for important issues, but virtually none of the issues on the Acid 3 list are important enough for us to take at this stage....

Ian’s Acid 3, unlike its predecessors, is not about establishing a baseline of useful web capabilities. It’s quite explicitly about making browser developers jump — Ian specifically sought out tests that were broken in WebKit, Opera, and Gecko, perhaps out of a twisted attempt at fairness. But the Acid tests shouldn’t be fair to browsers, they should be fair to the web; they should be based on how good the web will be as a platform if all browsers conform, not about how far any given browser has to stretch to get there.

...Acid 3 could have had a tremendous positive effect on the web, representing the next target for the web platform, and helping developers prioritize work in such a way as to maximize the aggregate capabilities of the web. Instead, it feels like a puzzle game...

 

[ski1ski1]

In the History menu there's ”Reopen Last Closed Window” and ”Reopen All Windows from Last Session”.

Is that what you're looking for?

That only opens the last closed window, not the last closed tab.

 

[Capt Crunch]

I've not used Safari once since Chrome Beta was released. No point.

The lack of an adblock for Chrome seems annoying.

 

[cumanzor]

Chrome is more of a novelty for Windows users, which are used to crappy browsers such as IE...it adds little real value over Safari for Mac, which is still the fastest browser on Earth.

Ahh yes, I'm so used to my crappy Opera 10. :|

Oh wait, who am I trying to argue with?

Either way, now that somebody mentioned Opera, why the **** is it appear to be so slow in those benchmarks*? Are the Opera devs working on their own new engine or something?

*Let's be realistic for a second, those differences aren't exactly noticeable. And the difference between Chrome and Safari are probably not even perceivable.

 

[postertorn]

I'm happy to leave Safari

I've been hoping Chrome would come out, and have switched to it, and will keep using it, unless I find that I must go back to Safari for some reason.

In the last few months I've found that my MBP will grind to a crawl, and the culprit (when it isn't Time Machine) is almost always Safari, and it's hogging memory. I usually shut it down when this happens, but that takes forever, and as often as not I have to force quit it.

I was tired of the misery.

 

[*LTD*]

I've been hoping Chrome would come out, and have switched to it, and will keep using it, unless I find that I must go back to Safari for some reason.

In the last few months I've found that my MBP will grind to a crawl, and the culprit (when it isn't Time Machine) is almost always Safari, and it's hogging memory. I usually shut it down when this happens, but that takes forever, and as often as not I have to force quit it.

I was tired of the misery.

How? Safari doesn't use more than it needs and on average uses only about 230mb. I'm running WebKit nightlies now, it's blazing fast, and is using only 190mb with several tabs open, while running a YouTube movie.

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Okay, just to prove a point, I went ahead and did essentially the same thing with Safari 4.0.4. Here you go:

I'm not sure what you're doing with Safari, but I've never experienced memory usage like that from the browser, and I've got more resources available on my system. What on earth are you viewing when that comes up? Is Flash misbheaving?

Safari on my Mac usually gobbles up around 250-400 MBs depending on how much I use it. I've had my computer on for a few days now and just to check, I loaded up about forty tabs, and here is my current performance.

You might want to figure out what is wrong.

 

[postertorn]

How? Safari doesn't use more than it needs and on average uses only about 230mb. I'm running WebKit nightlies now, it's blazing fast, and is using only 190mb with several tabs open, while running a YouTube movie.

I'll play around with WebKit and see how it works.

 

[macUser2007]

LOL. Safari 4.04 may be 12% faster in JavaScript benching, but it's the worst of ALL browsers I tested in Flash performance.

So, who in their right mind would continue to use a browser, which performs so poorly with a huge part of the web, because it clocks 12% better on a synthetic JavaScript test?!

Yep, FLASH, even if the handful of regular "I-hate-FLASH-and-the-world-is wrong" boys scream that FLASH sucks.

No, boys, Safari sucks, Flash works just fine for the rest of the BIG world....

 

[WotanAgain]

LOL. Safari 4.04 may be 12% faster in JavaScript benching, but it's the worst of ALL browsers I tested in Flash performance.

So, who in their right mind would continue to use a browser, which performs so poorly with a huge part of the web, because it clocks 12% better on a synthetic JavaScript test?!

Yep, FLASH, even if the handful of regular "I-hate-FLASH-and-the-world-is wrong" boys scream that FLASH sucks.

No, boys, Safari sucks, Flash works just fine for the rest of the BIG world....

I haven't done any benchmarking, but I've noticed this too. I'm not a fan of Safari.

 

[50548]

Chrome is in its first open beta. As in, not yet Release quality, still need to nail down some features and optimize / tweak stuff.

Safari has been in Release quality (non-Beta) since June 2007 as far as I can tell, which means the product has had almost 2.5 years of fine-tuning.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the released version of Chrome run laps around Safari.

-J

This is just a long-standing marketing gimmick by Google...pretty much EVERYTHING it releases is called Beta even when it has final release quality...it's also a way to minimize legal risks and reduce expectations, exactly so they can be seen as releasing outstanding stuff.

 

[50548]

And you are sure that's Safari fault? No plugins? How many tabs and what sites you are loading to achieve such memory usage? Because I have no problems with Safari Snow Leopard.

No problems here either...sometimes I really don't know what the heck is the issue for some people...

My Safari with 7 tabs open on relatively demanding websites - 300Mb of memory usage.

 

[50548]

Idk how long you have been a Mac user, but we haven't had safari since the beginning. When we got our iMac G4 in 2002, it came loaded with IE for Mac (YUCK), there was no such thing as safari yet. That was probably one of the worst browsers ever. Safari didn't exist until 2003, and before then the main browsers for Mac were FF, Camino and IE. Also, it is impossible for Safari to always been the fastest browser that has ever existed, because there were many other browsers before Safari, and there was a fastest out of those browsers. There have been browsers since the late 1980's, there has been Sfari since 2003. Therefore Safari couldn't have been always the fastest. Which one? IDK.

Well, I use Macs since 1995 with System 7 and Netscape Navigator but was mainly talking about the last 5 years or so...don't even start with IE for Mac, which has always been absolutely craptastic.

My point is that ORDINARY Windows users know no better...so when a big company like Google releases Chrome, it's REALLY a big deal for them.

In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

This is just a long-standing marketing gimmick by Google...pretty much EVERYTHING it releases is called Beta even when it has final release quality...it's also a way to minimize legal risks and reduce expectations, exactly so they can be seen as releasing outstanding stuff.

They can 'minimize legal risk' just fine through the license agreement.
A long beta cycle does not necessarily equate to a gimmick.

 

[macUser2007]

... In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.

Hm, I've continuously used Macs from about the same time. The only Windows box I've used is the one I bought for HTPC, because Apple was (and in reality still is) behind on that front.

W7 is really a pretty good OS, and certainly not crap. I still like OS 10.6 better overall, but your statements are either based on ignorance, or being inflamatory.

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

 

[caf9128]

Well, I use Macs since 1995 with System 7 and Netscape Navigator but was mainly talking about the last 5 years or so...don't even start with IE for Mac, which has always been absolutely craptastic.

My point is that ORDINARY Windows users know no better...so when a big company like Google releases Chrome, it's REALLY a big deal for them.

In other words, they are used to crap; so anything better than crap is a godsend to Windows users...the impact of Chrome on Mac users is absolutely irrelevant.

Wow. Rather condescending. I think "ordinary" Windows users "who don't know any better" have long had lots of browser options. Currently I think Safari on my Mac is crap compared to running Chrome on Windows 7--it's really, really fast and smooth. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think you've been in a Mac fog a little too long maybe. Some of us use both platforms and are not comparing our 2009 Mac OS to the way they remember Windows 98 years ago.

 

[Povilas]

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

BS.

 

[50548]

Hm, I've continuously used Macs from about the same time. The only Windows box I've used is the one I bought for HTPC, because Apple was (and in reality still is) behind on that front.

W7 is really a pretty good OS, and certainly not crap. I still like OS 10.6 better overall, but your statements are either based on ignorance, or being inflamatory.

Safari is just not a great browser, neither on Windows, nor on OS 10.

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - I am not talking about Windows, I am talking about ORDINARY users with IE (even though Windows is, OF COURSE, crap; I am always amazed to see, at work, how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow and good only for those that like to tinker with their browsers; Chrome is close but no cigar;

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility, I have only one thing to say: Click2Flash;

4 - Finally, Apple's purported "high horse" behavior shows in its awesome financial performance when compared with the rest of the market...it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[DoFoT9]

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx​

The article says that overall browser performance is more than just one synthetic benchmark - all functions of the browser need to perform well for the best user experience.

If all the fast Javascript engine does is get you to the beach ball faster, it's not that useful.

thats the one i was referring to thanks for that!

Apple is second class in FLASH performance, and graphics - both due in large part to Apple's closed nature, and its "our way, or the highway" attitude towards its customers.

BS.

hmm i agree with macUser, though i dont blame apple for it completely.

 

[bkap16]

Different

Well, I seem to be getting the opposite result. On my Macbook Pro (4,1), Chrome beats Safari by about 20ms on Sunspider (470ms to 490ms). Of course, they're both killing Firefox 3.6b4 (950ms)

 

[AidenShaw]

Some of us use both platforms and are not comparing our 2009 Mac OS to the way they remember Windows 98 years ago.

I don't think that 98 years ago there were very many Windows systems around....

</joke>

But yes, a lot of people around here (and in Apple ads) seem to be comparing the latest Apple OSX to some version of pre-NT Windows like 9x or 3.1.

 

[IntelliUser]

I don't think that 98 years ago there were very many Windows systems around....

</joke>

But yes, a lot of people around here (and in Apple ads) seem to be comparing the latest Apple OSX to some version of pre-NT Windows like 9x or 3.1.

probably because the difference in stability between os x and windows is like the difference between Windows 7 and Win 98-2000. That is, if you use it intesively enough.

 

[AidenShaw]

probably because the difference in stability between os x and windows is like the difference between Windows 7 and Win 98-2000. That is, if you use it intesively enough.

Isn't there enough evidence of people having big problems with 10.6 to put this one to bed? (Ignore the next 20 replies from people who say OSX 10.6 has been "flawless" for them and "Windows 7 sucks".)

And, by the way, were you aware that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are from different codebases? Windows 2000 is an NT-based system, Windows 98 is based on the 16-bit/32-bit hybrid Windows 95 base. Windows 2000 is very stable.

The truth is that OSX and NT are both stable for the majority of users. Some people have problems due to hardware issues or poorly written or conflicting software - but for most users both NT and OSX are stable, productive platforms.

 

[*LTD*]

Again the ugly head of feature-fanatics shows up in this forum.

1 - I am not talking about Windows, I am talking about ORDINARY users with IE (even though Windows is, OF COURSE, crap; I am always amazed to see, at work, how absolutely INCOMPETENT Windows XP is in terms of multitasking and UI performance); if you're NOT using IE, you are NOT an ordinary Windows user;

2 - Safari is the BEST browser on OS X hands down; Firefox is ridiculously slow and good only for those that like to tinker with their browsers; Chrome is close but no cigar;

3 - As for Flash, which is purely Adobe's responsibility, I have only one thing to say: Click2Flash;

4 - Finally, Apple's purported "high horse" behavior shows in its awesome financial performance when compared with the rest of the market...it DOMINATES revenues when everyone else is just foundering. Nothing else needs to be said.

I have to agree with this. Flash performance isn't that bad, though. I've been YouTubing with Safari lately and things have been ok. Certain vids send the cpu usage up, others don't. WebKit nightlies, however, run Flash content like a champ. I'm experiencing no beachballs, no slowdowns whatsoever and consistently acceptable memory management with extended use of WebKit nightlies. Love 'em. And it's all Safari, to boot. Just bleeding-edge Safari.

Isn't there enough evidence of people having big problems with 10.6 to put this one to bed?

There is evidence. Just not enough. Problems with OS X can be fixed with a few quick updates. Problems with Windows . . . require another version of Windows.

 

[50548]

I have to agree with this. Flash performance isn't that bad, though. I've been YouTubing with Safari lately and things have been ok. Certain vids send the cpu usage up, others don't. WebKit nightlies, however, run Flash content like a champ. I'm experiencing no beachballs, no slowdowns whatsoever and consistently acceptable memory management with extended use of WebKit nightlies. Love 'em. And it's all Safari, to boot. Just bleeding-edge Safari.

I concur with the performance improvement, although it's far from ideal...in fact, I already said in a different thread that the latest beta version of Flash performs much better on my Mac...yet another evidence that it's Adobe that has been screwing up all these years, not Apple.