MUST READ: Microsoft unleashes bug bounty program — for betas, too

Topic: Operating Systems

Discover

Safari 3.1 is fast ... but so is Firefox 3.0 Beta 4

Summary: A little over a week ago I took a look at Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 and I benchmarked this latest release against the current browser lineup. Yesterday Apple released Safari 3.1 so the browser landscape has now changed. It's time to see how Apple's latest browser fits into the big picture.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

By for Hardware 2.0 |

A little over a week ago I took a look at Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 and I benchmarked this latest release against the current browser lineup.  Yesterday Apple released Safari 3.1 so the browser landscape has now changed.  It's time to see how Apple's latest browser fits into the big picture.

Apple makes some bold claims relating to Safari.   Have a read of this:

The fastest web browser on any platform, Safari loads pages up to 1.9 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and up to 1.7 times faster than Firefox 2.

And it executes JavaScript up to 6 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and up to 4 times faster than Firefox 2.  What does all that mean for you? Less time loading pages and more time enjoying them.

To put these results into context you have to also read the small print:

Performance measured in seconds. Testing conducted by Apple in March 2008 on a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based iMac system running Windows XP Professional SP2, configured with 1GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 2600 with 256MB of VRAM. HTML and JavaScript benchmarks based on VeriTest’s iBench Version 5.0 using default settings. Testing conducted with a beta version of Safari; all other browsers were shipping versions. Performance will vary based on system configuration, network connection, and other factors. [emphasis added]

Now if I'm going to pull Apple up over anything it's over the use of iBench.  iBench 5.0 is a benchmarking fossil.  It was released November 2003 and it's safe to say that a lot has changed since then, especially as popular websites are now loaded with JavaScripts and make heavy use of AJAX.  Benchmarking a modern browser (and OS) with an old tool seems pointless to me and the results should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt.  But it does highlight a problem that when it comes to browser benchmarking tools, there isn't much to choose from.  iBench might be old (and obsolete) but there's not much else to take its place.  We either have to rely on benchmarking against live sites and put up with all the variables introduced by server load, lag times and local traffic bottlenecks, or alternatively rely on synthetic benchmarks which have little in common with the real world.

There are dozens of tests out there that look at page loading times and page rendering speeds, but I don't feel happy using any of them, and as a result I'll leave out any discussion of page loading and rendering.

I'm going to confine testing to two tests:

  • SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark
  • ACID 3

Testing will be carried out on the same hardware and software platform as previous tests were carried out on.

The tests -->

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark

Apple isn't kidding when it says that Safari 3.1 is fast.  In my SunSpider JavaScript benchmark it is only narrowly beaten by Firefox 3.0 Beta 4. 

Safari 3.1 is fast, but so is Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 

Note:  Neither version of Opera fully completed the MD5 part of the test, and these results have been omitted. 

Raw results available here.

Based on these results, Safari 3.1 is neck and neck with Firefox 3.0 Beta 4, about twice as fast as Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 and Firefox 3.0 Beta 3, four times faster than Firefox 2.0.0.12 and, well, about seven times faster than Internet Explorer 7.

Just for completeness I decided to run the same benchmarks on a smaller cross-section of Mac OS X browsers on the Mac mini that I have here.  In this test Safari 3.1 beat both Safari 3.0.4 and Firefox 2.0.0.12 and 3.0 Beta 4.

Safari 3.1 is fast, but so is Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 

Safari 3.1 is one speedy browser.

ACID 3 

To round off this set of tests I ran Safari 3.1 through the ACID 3 test to see how it performed.  The result - it did remarkably well.  It easily beat all the other browsers in the lineup:

Safari 3.1 is fast, but so is Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 

Here's the output:

Safari 3.1 ACID 3

Still a fair way to go though before it passes the test:

ACID 3 reference 

Closing thoughts

Well there you have it.  Safari 3.1 is fast.  Compared to performance pigs such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 2, the latest incarnation of Safari flies.  But put it up against Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 and the browser faces still competition.  Both appear to be highly optimized for speed and performance.  Still, it's good to see that speed is back on the agenda for browsers. 

Thoughts?

<< Home >>

Topics: Operating Systems, Apple, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

45 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Opera on Acid Test

    Hm, I know on my build of Opera 9.5 I get a 77 on the Acid3 test. Then again, its not an official beta release, just one of the weekly builds [9.5 build 9841], so it doesn't quite count.
    TigerhawkVok
    Reply Vote

  • I installed Safari on Vista

    It was TERRIBLE. Easily the ugliest browser I've ever seen. The fonts were incredibly blurry to the point where I couldn't read any of the text. The thing also crashed many, many, many times. So while it may bring text to the screen 0.5% faster than Firefox, it really does no good when you can't read that text because it is so blurry... assuming Safari hasn't crashed while loading the page.

    Firefox is the one for me. Safari had its chance and blew it. I will never install that garbage again.
    NonZealot
    Reply Vote

    • you've gone too far... you're sounding like Mike Cox now...

      8.5 on the Mike Cox rating scale.

      only problem is that you are actually trying to be taken seriously..
      totally transparent MS shill... how can anyone with half a brain actually
      take you seriously any more?

      like you tried Safari... whatever man! Apple products for you are like
      garlic to a vampire... you would burst into flames if you pressed the
      download safari button.

      Safari 3.0 was not that good... i admit that. i didn't even use it as my
      default browser on my Mac, but i'm thinking i'm going to switch from
      Firefox to Safari now... finally renders all the websites that i use
      everyday... the Firefox 3.0 Beta theme for OS X is freak'n brutal... what
      were these guys thinking??

      I've been running Safari on a PC at work in XP for the last two days
      and it's rock solid.. not even one crash... not buggy in the least... if i
      was on a PC at home though i probably would still run Firefox because
      of the security issues of Safari on the PC though. but stability in this
      release is not an issue... that's how i can tell that you either have not
      used it, or are just out and out lying.
      doctorSpoc
      Reply Vote

      • The important thing here is the competition. We went years without any

        upgrades to IE, and now, the upgrades are coming fast and furious. What could be better??? Exactly which one is best at the current moment is interesting, but, it is the overall improvement of all browsers that is great.
        DonnieBoy
        Reply Vote

        • Yeah, what he said. (nt)

          nt
          Hallowed are the Ori
          Reply Vote

        • Competition is good

          nt
          D T Schmitz
          Reply Vote

        • Ditto....

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
          Reply Vote

      • He's not satirical, he's actually serious. Don't compare him to MIke. [nt]

        nt.
        olePigeon
        Reply Vote

    • Font rendering philosophies

      The font problems arise from different font rendering philosophies. Apple has a philosophy that the letters should look the same at all sizes, reflecting what would be printed on paper. Microsoft, on the other hand, emphasizes legibility, going as far as even changing the shapes of the letters at small sizes to make them more legible. What you are seeing is that Safari uses Apple's font rendering.
      CobraA1
      Reply Vote

      • Yeah, I remember that discussion

        I do understand [b]why[/b] the text is blurry to the point of illegibility but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to read. I suppose this is why the EC stated that [url=http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-166874.html] Macs are only useful for publishing and no one else could possibly justify buying them. [/url]
        NonZealot
        Reply Vote

        • Apple computers were 14%

          Of all PC sales in the United States last month. That's a 60%
          increase over last year.

          The more you rant, the more obsolete and fossilized you
          sound.
          frgough
          Reply Vote

          • Picking nits

            Apple computers were 14% of all [b]retail[/b] sales last month, not all PC sales. Keep in mind that a good deal of PC sales are direct rather than retail.
            itpro_z
            Reply Vote

        • And to WHOM pray tell do we need to "Justify"

          our preference? Let me guess there is no such person or
          entity. I thought as much. I do have fun with you and your
          ilk but in the end I simply prefer the Mac and find myself
          more productive and my experience/work with said to be far
          more enjoyable. That is in the end all the justification I need.

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
          Reply Vote

        • And yet...

          People in publishing presumably like their stuff to look amazing onscreen and off. Also, people seem to like what they see given the Feb sales spike, or are you saying that people just love the fuzzy look so much they are shelling out for it in droves. Who knows, perhaps they put on "special glasses" provided at the Apple stores, just to fake them out.
          zkiwi
          Reply Vote

        • Font smoothing is optional

          In Safari 3.1:

          Go to the Edit menu
          Select preferences
          Click the Appearance button

          <B>Choose whatever Font Smoothing option you
          want!</b>

          Is it your argument that it's somehow bad to give users a
          choice?
          steveklein
          Reply Vote

    • Sounds like your Vista

      needs a lot of work doing on it!
      labarker
      Reply Vote

    • First sign of trouble: "On Vista"

      Heck, most MS software didn't work on Vista (Can you say
      Zune??) , how could anyone get it right:-)
      Bruizer
      Reply Vote

      • I wouldn't know, I don't have a Zune

        Funny though how Firefox (what I'm using now) never, ever, ever crashes on Vista. In fact, by looking at my Reliability and Performance monitor, I can tell you [b]exactly[/b] how many application crashes I've had since Jan 1:
        Jan 11: 3 Roxio crashes, all right after installing it. Went back to Nero, no problems since.
        Jan 15: Windows Media player.
        Jan 22: LGDCore.exe (my Logitech keyboard's LCD display driver)
        Jan 26: Windows Movie Maker
        Feb 11: LGDCore.exe
        March 1: LGDCore.exe
        March 16: LGDCore.exe

        In 3.5 months I've had 7 application crashes. Safari crashed 5 times on the day I installed it. It would seem that Apple is one of the very few that can't figure out how to write a Vista application.

        Hmm, actually, you might be right, it might be Vista that is the deciding factor in the crashes. After all, we already know from the Mac ads that Apple is deathly afraid of Vista. Maybe there is a bit of code in Safari that causes multiple crashes if it detects Vista, in the hopes that the user will blame MS for the problems! Guess I'm smarter than Apple. :)
        NonZealot
        Reply Vote

        • And many Window users

          are also deathly afraid of Vista. :)
          Ken_z
          Reply Vote

    • thats a little harsh

      I don't know about vista but I found it works fine on XP pro an OS X, I do agree that Firefox is better but find it hard to explain why other then just personal choice, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it and I know for certain the if it weren't for firefox I'd be using safari!
      akkarin2.0
      Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close