RSSThe final score: Firefox 3.5 performs at 251% the speed of 3.0
Microsoft says Web browser performance enhancements should be something you can see. If you can't see this, you're blind.
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 1, 2009, 1:55 PM
For a good part of Tuesday, the Web Standards Project's Acid3 testing server was offline. With it went 25% of our browser performance testing capacity, which kept us from being able to publish our initial Mozilla Firefox 3.5 performance index as originally planned. As Acid3 started coming back, browsers were posting curiously low scores (for instance, Opera 10 Beta below 100%) that led us to dispute the test more than the browser.
Today, however, with the server back online, we're able to give a reliable performance estimate for the first fully stable edition of Firefox 3.5. Earlier this week, some of our readers advised us that 3.5 RC3 would be bit-for-bit identical with the final 3.5, so the scores should come out the same. And if they don't, then something must be wrong with us.
No, that's not correct. Many of the scores contributing to our benchmarks, such as individual heats in the SunSpider test, were indeed either the same or within 0.5 ms of the RC3 score. But some of the advances we saw in the final private builds, particularly in DOM handling and regular expression (RegEx) parsing, did carry over into the final 3.5 build after all, for big gains in those departments specifically.
That's the thing about speed test profiling: We can see where things change and where they don't.
As a result, Firefox 3.5 posted a 9.93 in our performance index on Windows XP SP3. What that means is, this latest browser generally performs nearly ten times better on XP than Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 (the previous version, not IE8) on Vista SP2, which is about the slowest browser you can run (and therefore the one we chose for our index).
Similar gains in the same departments were recorded for Vista and for Windows 7 RC. Vista still slows down the browser (any browser) noticeably, making it post a 7.61 index score. While Windows 7 is still a slower platform than XP, it's not nearly the bear that Vista has been: Firefox 3.5 scores a 9.24 in Win7 RC. In terms of speed alone, the new Firefox runs 29% faster in Win7 RC than Vista SP2, and 41% faster in XP SP3 than Vista SP2.
On average (taking into account some new and welcome speed gains in the latest Opera 10 Beta), Web browsers run 20% faster in Windows 7 RC than in Vista SP2. Comparing the new Firefox to the one folks were running just last week, by Betanews estimates, version 3.5 runs at 253.8% the speed of version 3.0.11 in Windows XP SP3, 246.5% the older version's speed in Vista SP2, and 254.6% the speed in Windows 7 RC. That averages out to about 251% the older version's performance across the board.
Yesterday's release of Firefox 3.5 means that the "Shiretoko" development track, which Mozilla reserves for whatever "the next version" may be, is now devoted to whatever improvements are to be incorporated in the first bug fix release, to be called version 3.5.1. There's no release date or even a forecast for this, because there just aren't that many bugs yet. But we are seeing minor performance improvements in the Shiretoko track over 3.5, including a 9.34 index score for Win7.
It also means the "Minefield" development track for 3.6 Alpha 1 undergoes some changes as well, the early results of which indicate that some temporary fixes were made to the JavaScript engine. Performance of the 3.6 Alpha daily build plummeted sharply on all three platforms (with Vista down to 6.48), though this may not be a suggestion that the 3.6 browser will necessarily be slower. Rather, developers may be reverting to older code in the interim, in order to make complete builds for now.
Lads, lads, lads, now let's all stop picking on fatty. In future before we make some derogatory comment about anyone, anyone at all, we need to take stock of what we are about say and count to ten before we post. You know how to count to ten don't you ? One Mississippi , two Mississippi , three Mississippi, four ......
Score: 0
That was how to count to four.
Sheesh...
Miss a few fingers? :p
"In future before we make some derogatory comment..."
Sorry...no can do. The PC in PC_Tool does *not* stand for Politically Correct. ;)
I was born a smart-ass jerk, I enjoy being a smart-ass jerk, and I will die making some smart-ass comment to the doctor (or the guy @ the bar holding the gun). Yup. Concern myself with the *feelings* and *fragility* of others? Bah... Where's the fun in that?
Score: 1
Who you kiddin' PC_Tool, not me that's for sure, heck you're just a big softy at heart, and I'm going to give you a thumbs up for that brave attempt at humour. As for fatty, I think he can take care of himself, way to go fatty, and it's a thumbs up for you too fella. Sorry chaps it appears any attempt on my part to add a thumbs up is being thwarted by the powers that be, I have been dishing them out rather freely of late, perhaps they're being rationed ? Still the thought was there, and that's what matters.
Score: 0
" Earlier this week, some of our readers advised us that 3.5 RC3 would be bit-for-bit identical with the final 3.5, so the scores should come out the same. And if they don't, then something must be wrong with us. No, that's not correct. Many of the scores contributing to our benchmarks ... were indeed either the same or within 0.5 ms of the RC3 score. But some of the advances we saw in the final private builds ... did carry over into the final 3.5 build after all, for big gains in those departments specifically."
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean: Firefox 3.5 RC 3 and the final Firefox 3.5 *are* the same. Literally nothing got changed, not even the build ID which is automatically generated based on the date it was compiled: 20090624. It's not even a different build. (This is why you don't see Mozilla label release candidates as "RC" in the About dialog--unlike, for example, Microsoft, Mozilla's release candidates literally *are* candidates for release, and if nothing goes wrong, they will *be* the release...eventually.)
Basically, there should be no significant differences between 3.5 RC 3 and 3.5 final, since they are the exact same.
Score: 2
By and large, I'm happy with it...
BUT
I still want to beat the idiots who designed the plugin "architecture" with a stick.
It doesn't work.
It's broken.
In fact, it's crap
Replace it.
Now.
The browser itself is nice but not earth shattering speed improvement over 3.0x.
But did I mention the plugin concept needs a re-think?
Perhaps I did...
Score: 1
What is wrong with it? Works great for me except for Microsoft installing unremovable security hole plugins...all their DRM and Office plugins i never asked to have installed.
Score: 2
Be grateful fatty that Bill and the gang are keeping you safe on-line, you really are a difficult fellow to please you know.
PS I intended to give you a thumbs down but inadvertently gave you a thumbs up. All attempts by me to correct this error were alas to no avail, so please take the extra thumbs up into account when checking next time OK ?
Score: 0
How ironic that fattyturd validates roj's complaint.
Score: 0
Heh...leave it to fatty to start making up BS about DRM again. He'd be so lost without his imagination...
Score: 0
Sometimes i just scratch my head in amazement as to how humanity has gotten this far with people like PC_Tool in world.
"Heh...leave it to fatty to start making up BS about DRM again. He'd be so lost without his imagination..."
Let's see, when i look at the "plugins" installed in my Firefox i see a ton of Microsoft stuff, i never installed....
1) 2007 Microsoft Office System
2) Microsoft Office 2003
3) Microsoft DRM (DRM Netscape Network Object)
4) Microsoft DRM (DRM Store Netscape Plugin)
5) Silverturd Plug-in
6) Windows Media Player Plug-in Synamic Link Library
7) Windows Presentation Foundation
Again, not sure what is broken...the OS can do whatever it wants to _any_ program on said system. Of course the real question is...why does Microsoft want to infect my Firefox installation with all its DRM and insecure software?
Score: 1
How can you ask what is wrong with an "architecture" that allows devs to roll their own interfaces (no configuration commonality - let's all build our own panels and menus however we want) and WORSE YET, **BREAKS** with every minor iteration of the browser?
It's kind of blatantly obvious what's wrong to all but he most myopic.
The ZillaLand devs were clearly in the 13-year-old-glued-the-toy-together-with-gum-and-spit level of maturity in their careers when they built it and Haven't Changed It Since.
Pretty Damned Stupid.
Score: 0
Easy there now big fella... :) :) ;)
Score: 0
All's i see is from and end user's perspective....and it works pretty good for me, except for the Microsoft infections, but they do control the OS so not much one can do except not run Windows. Which unfortunately, due to their monopoly, it is hard to stay Microsoft free. Take my crappy cloner laptop i have at work, for example, POS...Dell or HP or Lenovo or whatever...all the same crap.
Score: 1
@Fatty:
Funny.
Amazing how you can get all of those and yet here I sit without even a .Net plugin...and I have done *nothing* out of the ordinary. The only 4 plugins installed are...*gasp* the plugins I installed.
Perhaps you're just utterly clueless?
Score: 0
I *AM* seeing it from an end user's perspective. I upgraded. Tab Mix Plus immediately broke. So did PlainOldFavorites (Bookmarks are outmoded and useless garbage and have been since Favorites were invented - I'll take the intelligent concepts of file system and OS integration, thanks).
I could see this mess *potentially* happening with a 4.0 release.
This wasn't a new .0 release.
And it happens with religiously monotonous regularity.
I'm also certainly not alone - others complain about this too, especially in FileForum.
Then the little l33t fanboiz appear...
"Stupid Talking Monkeys... "
Score: 0
@roj:
Agreed. Had to go out and grab the dev-build of TMP and some other guy's version of Opendownload.
It's a mess....
Score: 0
Perhaps you should do what others do and just contact the extensions developer and ask them to update the extension or theme you use.
If you have visited the TMP Site you will see that the extension dev has a beta build available that does work with the latest Fx release and no doubt will release it to the Addons Site soon. I know the TMP beta works as I have been using it all along with the Fx branch build that became the Fx v3.5.
Score: 0
Yup. Dev build of TMP seems stable - fingers crossed.
This BS has to END.
Score: 0
But you see, I shouldn't have to.
The architecture should be ROBUST enough that minor point changes shouldn't even make it blink.
It clearly isn't.
That's a flaw.
A BIG ONE.
What you're suggesting is valid but it's a bandaid, nothing more.
Score: 0
@fattyturd: Learn the difference between "Programs and Features" in the Control Panel and Firefox Add-Ins.
Score: 0
Perhaps you all need a lesson in how see what plug-ins exist in Firefox....If you are using an insecure Windows OS, select Tools >> Add-ons >> Plugins. Note, not "Extensions". No wonder you all use Windows, the combined IQ is about 30...their marketing brainwashed you all like nothing.
Score: -1
@roj,
the plug-in architecture is broken because a plug-in developer releases buggy code? LOL. Wow.
Score: 0
Firefox 3.5 took 10 seconds to start up on my machine, and then a further 15 secs to fully load 9 tabs. Opera 10 beta took 3 secs to start up, and 10 secs to fully load the same 9 tabs. IE8 took 4 secs to start up, and 18 secs to fully load the identical tabs. Difference between slowest and fastest including start up amounted to 12 secs. The tests were conducted using the widely accepted use of the one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi rule. Although I'm British in deference to this site being American owned I decided that by using the well known one Mississippi equals one second rule, folk from all over the world would be able to post their own results here, so what do you think ? Does twelve Mississippis' make any difference in the real world or not ?
Score: 0
Your machine is broken. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Score: 1
It would appear mjm01010101 humour is not your forte.
Score: 0
all i know is this is the first noticeable speed increase i have experienced from a web browser version upgrade
Score: 2
Safari and Chrome saw big gains too.
Score: 0
Once they're finished, they'll likely slow down quite a bit.
Score: 0
Chrome will never be finished.
It's a Google app.
They never finish anything.
After all, then they'd have to, oh I don['t know - actually SUPPORT something.
Score: 0
"If you can't see this, you're blind" - That's such a stupid statement. While synthetic benchmarks are interesting, these tests have little bearing on real world performance.
This would be like testing GPUs with purely synthetic benchmarks. Real gamers test performance with the games themselves. Likewise, real browser performance tests should give an indication of how the browser will perform in day-to-day use.
Are any of these browsers 10X faster at loading a web page? I think not. How about 2X? Not even.
These benchmark articles are such a waste of bandwidth.
Score: 0
especially when your browser of choice, or the company's browser you are getting paid by, is so far behind the other's it is a total joke.
Score: -2
I agree with you Sambo, but then you have to realize that most of these people don't have a life outside their basements and they get their rocks on a page loading 3 ms faster.
Score: -1