Google Chrome

[DanF]

Chrome is pretty nippy with Javascraps, try pressing the bottom button on this page in all the different browsers

jsTimeTest

I get this using my work PC:

IE, n/a throws a stropy fit
Opera: 185ms
FF: 175ms
Chrome: 36ms

 

[Sumanji]

I get about 300ms with Firefox here. What does Chrome give you?

 

[NeilF]

I find I get random longish hangs with Chrome. For example, visiting the google financials to look at the FTSE100, I get a nice 5-10 lag when playing with the graph. Don't get anything like that with FF or IE...

 

[DanF]

Yeah I've seen a few pages that don't display properly, but looking at them it's almost always due to rubbish non-compliant cheapass html.

Signing in to hotmail is funny though, I'm sure Chrome is a modern browser.

 

[Craig321]

Not sure if anybody's posted this yet, but you can sign up to the Dev channel updates which will change your update server from Beta to Developers.

The developers channel gets updates more often, but obviously you'll be the first to know if there are problems as you'll be getting early releases

Download: http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel

 

[Russinating]

I get 1285ms on IE6 on my terminal PC at work - pity me!

 

[tolien]

Never tried Firefox or Opera. Are they that much better than IE7? Which one is the best?

Whichever you use of Firefox, Opera or Chrome, you'll almost certainly find it's faster than IE7. The gap's narrower with IE8 but it isn't at release (and if you want to compare beta browsers, Fx3.1 or Chrome will blow IE8 away).

I get about 300ms with Firefox here. What does Chrome give you?

You can't really compare unless they're on the same machine - CPU type and speed play a massive part.

With Chrome 0.2.149.29 I get {60, 64, 63}ms, with an Fx3.1 nightly (with JIT enabled) I get {64, 63, 63}ms and {415, 422, 449ms} with a Fx3 branch nightly (which should be near enough release 3.0.2).

 

[mrk]

120ms in Firefox 3 for me with all my extensions etc enabled too. IE7 32 and 64bit get over 500ms and Chrome gets 23ms.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

120ms in Firefox 3 for me with all my extensions etc enabled too. IE7 32 and 64bit get over 500ms and Chrome gets 23ms.

You notice the vast difference between 1/100th of a second and 1/500th of a second do you?

 

[mrk]

Java performance yes indeed. IE is just much...slower.

 

[tolien]

It's JavaScript, not Java.

You notice the vast difference between 1/100th of a second and 1/500th of a second do you?

In the real world, some apps either take in the order of seconds to finish (or stutter, gobble CPU time etc) or just aren't feasible with JS that's 5-10x slower. With fast JS, things like image editing in the browser without plugins becomes more of a reality...

 

[ticktock]

Is Opera better than Firefox? I ask as i am trying Firefox now and for me IE7 is much better!

 

[tolien]

In what sense is IE better?

Opera and Fx are about 6 and half a dozen - you can't pile addons into Opera like Firefox, but Opera has a load of features built in. They're similarly fast and stable and both relatively secure.

 

[Russinating]

I got ~600-1000 in IE and FF and ~60 in Chrome!

 

[Ratbag]

I haven't used Chrome yet as I was vaguely disturbed by googles privacy policy. I've quickly scanned through this post and I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a discussion on this issue.

I guess what surprises me most is how keen some people here seem to be on protecting their privacy - practically soiling their pants at the prospect of having a simple tracker cookie on their PC- and then they go and deploy this glorified keylogger.

Now I'm not paranoid - I'm no fan of anti-malware apps in general - but whichever way you look at it googles privacy policy reeks.

There are ways to circumvent this policy though.

 

[tolien]

I get {1073, 909, 1078}ms with IE6.

I'd suggest if you're getting the same values with Fx and IE that either a) there's something wrong with the test or b) there's something wrong with the test.

Google's V8, Webkit's Sunspider and Mozilla's Dromaeo are fairly well-tested and reliable benchmarks, and they generally test different things (V8's quite recursion-heavy for one).

 

[mr.sly]

I haven't used Chrome yet as I was vaguely disturbed by googles privacy policy. I've quickly scanned through this post and I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a discussion on this issue.

I guess what surprises me most is how keen some people here seem to be on protecting their privacy - practically soiling their pants at the prospect of having a simple tracker cookie on their PC- and then they go and deploy this glorified keylogger.

Now I'm not paranoid - I'm no fan of anti-malware apps in general - but whichever way you look at it googles privacy policy reeks.

There are ways to circumvent this policy though.

You don't get to decide if you're paranoid or not, when you start saying an excellent browser is a "glorified keylogger".

 

[Appsenser]

Tried Chrome, Opera and IE8 and none of them were discernably faster than Firefox.

You must be smoking crack, all of them are slower than Chrome. It's a shame Chrome forgets to 'Do no evil'.

 

[tolien]

You don't get to decide if you're paranoid or not, when you start saying an excellent browser is a "glorified keylogger".

While it's a pretty strong choice of words, it's possibly true: when you type something in the URL bar every letter goes to Google, so you've got to trust they aren't doing something evil with it...

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

With fast JS, things like image editing in the browser without plugins becomes more of a reality...

What do you want to edit images in a browser for? Browse with a browser, edit images in an image editing app, not some cobbled together sluggish browser live-app "thing".