Researcher: Chrome Is The Slowest JavaScript Browser

[rantoc]

All in all id say the differences are small from an average benchmark point, use whatever browser that has the features you like.

With modern PC processors and well coded browsers the typical web page should perform pretty much the same anyway! Compatibility and features are more important nowadays in my book!

 

[qhoa1385]

though I use chrome and it is my main browser, but i can confirm this, chrome is way way slower than Firefox, but that's why I have 4 browsers installed

LOL

 

[Guest]

It's incredible to see how many people misread the benchmark results. Douglas Perry the first.
Independently from the goodness of the benchmark itself, reading a result table shouldn't be so difficult...
IE10 is the first, FF4 the second and Safari the third (clearly is not the fastest...)...that is what the linked page says.

 

[Guest]

It's incredible to see how many people misread the benchmark results. Douglas Perry the first.
Independently from the goodness of the benchmark itself, reading a result table shouldn't be so difficult...
IE10 is the first, FF4 the second and Safari the third (clearly is not the fastest...)...that is what the linked page says.

 

[zodiacfml]

who cares, use what you want.

 

[swamprat]

Speed is surely second to who you can get to wear the t-shirt?

 

[soetsout]

lol im not entirely sure on which is fastest, but i know chrome has got quite a few security issues still to go, its the worst explorer Security wise, and the best in that case is ie9 followed by firefox, safari, opera. dont think ie10 was out when i read the article.

personaly i like firefox, good interface and i like specific themes on there ^^
chrome isnt bad, just not finish yet, they add/change too much with updates so thats an indication of progress.

 

[Guest]

@johnsmithhatesVLC

Two of chrome's adblock extensions have blocked ads from downloading for quite a while now. This hasn't been a problem for ages. Have up to date information before making such dumb posts.

 

[Guest]

This is absolutely a load of crap. It's well-known that Safari and Chrome tend to battle for the best fastest Javascript browser; Chrome is far from the slowest.

Furthermore, JSLint is an absolutely ridiculous tool. Douglas came and spoke at my university about the JSLint tool, and I was personally disgusted with his attitude and arrogance. He believes he's the greatest thing that has ever happened to Javascript and it's incredibly irritating.

During his talk, I tested some of my JS code against the JSLint tool. It raised hundreds of pointless errors including errors about 'no braces after if statements' (keep in mind that, according to W3C, one-line if statements are valid JS syntax). Some of my JS code is currently used on production sites that average thousands of hits per day and there has never been a complaint about Javascript benchmarks.

So, at the end of the talk, Crockford opened the floor to questions. I asked why his tool, JSLint, raised errors against W3C standards. He claimed that *not* having curly braces after if statements was invalid syntax and browsers just weren't strict enough. He then claimed that adding curly braces speed up rendering time (despite the fact that it adds additional load time).

So.... I ran my own benchmark tests and he's 1000% WRONG. Curly braces are actually about 3x *slower* (2.67) that one-liners! (I tested for loops and if statements).

I personally don't respect anything the man says, and I question his knowledge on the subject. I know many leaders in the JS industry also refute the majority of his claims. I would not believe this article... at all

 

[Guest]

It is hard to know the validity of his own benchmark other than self-promotional, but I ran the test on a few of the browsers on my computer (a plain jane Core2Duo 3GHz) using Win7 x64, and got slightly different numbers (I ran 3 times each but the variation in the trials was minimal):

Chrome 12 (don't have older builds) - 1.136
IE9 (same build as his) - 0.208 (Fastest of the lot)
FF4 - 0.473
Opera 11.10 - 0.502

FWIW I use Chrome as my default bowser. There is more to browsing than just JS speed. Time to open, memory used per tab (I have on average 15 open - sometimes as few as 12, and sometimes as many as 30), time to open a tab, time to render a page, etc.

 

[natmaster]

[citation][nom]Browser-retesting[/nom]It is hard to know the validity of his own benchmark other than self-promotional, but I ran the test on a few of the browsers on my computer (a plain jane Core2Duo 3GHz) using Win7 x64, and got slightly different numbers (I ran 3 times each but the variation in the trials was minimal):Chrome 12 (don't have older builds) - 1.136 IE9 (same build as his) - 0.208 (Fastest of the lot)FF4 - 0.473Opera 11.10 - 0.502FWIW I use Chrome as my default bowser. There is more to browsing than just JS speed. Time to open, memory used per tab (I have on average 15 open - sometimes as few as 12, and sometimes as many as 30), time to open a tab, time to render a page, etc.[/citation]

So why don't you use Firefox, the most memory efficient (if you have more than 3 tabs open) browser?

 

[rantoc]

Amazing that the TH staff still haven't fixed the error in this article, the browser speed list vs benchmark results source is still wrong. Sponsored perhaps or don't care to give the readers accurate information?

 

[Guest]

@natmaster "So why don't you use Firefox, the most memory efficient (if you have more than 3 tabs open) browser?"

Because it suffers from chronic memory leakage which is worsened by the greater number of tabs opened. Open 20 tabs or so, different ones, and go to task manager and watch the memory usage grow in front of your eyes.

 

[house70]

Why does this matter?
At all?
Can anyone honestly say they feel the difference in speed and to the point where it becomes annoying, switching browsers because of that?
Get serious, people.

 

[JamesSneed]

Agree. Javascript performance is no longer very meaningful to 99% of people since the top 4-5 web browsers are more than competent. Its all about features, compatibility, and usability.

 

[11796pcs]

Finally something Chrome isn't good at!

 

[eddieroolz]

Find it strange how two browsers (Safari, Chrome) based on the same engine (more or less) have such a difference according to this benchmark.

But then, Chrome and Safari have huge differences in response speed and memory usage so I suppose anything can happen.

Oh, and IE9 ftw.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]natmaster[/nom]Directly from the benchmark site linked to:JavaScript Performance(Smaller is better) Browser Seconds IE10Chrome 10.0.648.205 2.801 4.9Firefox 4.0.1 0.956 1.7IE 9.0.8112.16421 64 1.159 2.0IE 10.0.1000.16394 0.562 1.0Opera 11.10 1.106 1.9Safari 5.0.5 (7533.21.10) 0.984 1.7This puts ie10 as #1, followed by safari barely beating firefox, then opera 11, ie9, followed by the hugely behind chrome. Way to get the ranking wrong. Typical of toms browser reporting.[/citation]

Kinda funny when you diss Tom's for their reporting, when you yourself read the source, and got it wrong yourself. Check again buddy. FF was second ;P

 

[Guest]

I develop JQuery/Mootools intense applications and the difference between chome and firefox is HUGE! sometimes firefox freeze itself for several seconds while chrome behaves really nice. However I still prefer firefox for developing as chrome lacks of many details... These are real world applications...