Firefox wins memory benchmark
Under Windows
REAL-WORLD TESTING of five web browsers under Windows has shown that Firefox 3 hung onto much less working-set memory after almost three hours of typical web-surfing.
The browsers tested included Safari 3.1.2, Firefox 3.0, Flock 1.2.2 (a Firefox 2 derivative), Opera 9.5 and Internet Explorer 8.0 Beta 1. The benchmark testing process used a custom .NET application that recorded memory usage every three seconds, creating millions of data points collected over 14 hours of combined web-surfing time.
Each browser was tested in a separate web-surfing session that lasted between 2.69 and 2.91 hours with brief periods of inactivity. The testbed computer had over 3GB of RAM and was running Windows Vista SP1. An ordinary complement of plugins was used with each browser, and reportedly included things like Flash, Acrobat Reader and Java, although the last two were said not thought to have been exercised. The tester reported that he accessed "just regular stuff" sites including Gmail, not many pages with large images or any browser benchmark web pages, with no more than about four windows open in each web browser and with no more than three tabs open in each window.
Over time, the Safari and Internet Explorer web browsers produced memory working-sets that steadily increased in size, while the Firefox 3, Flock and Opera web browsers exhibited memory working-sets that stabilised and more-or-less leveled off. Real memory available on the testbed computer wasn't exhausted by the testing performed on any of the browsers, but one might conjecture that Safari and Internet Explorer might have eventually consumed all available real memory if the testing had been continued long enough.
The final memory working-set sizes reported were: Safari - 636.9MB, Firefox 3 - 111.8MB, Flock - 191.9MB, Opera - 190.6MB, and Internet Explorer - 194.4MB.
The INQUIRER has not contacted Apple or Microsoft seeking comment on these b enchmark results because it's 3:00 AM in their headquarters' timezone at press time, but we'll be glad to report any reaction to these test results, should the software vendors care to comment. µ
L'Inq
Dot
Net Perls
Comments
Broken test
And the reason why real-world web browsers like Internet Explorer 6 or 7 were not tested is left to our imagination.What drugs was this tester on?
Why test beta software like IE8?
Or is it because IE6/7 better than Firefox 3?
Tester's credibility I rate at zero.
"New Math"
you mention 4 browsers were tested. I either counted 5 or I'm having a mild stroke.so what
does it really matter given the mucho cheepo price of ram :O)
what about CPU usage, im using ff3 to post this (when ya gonna fix this site to work with opera grrrrrrrrr) but when im back to opera (with ff3 still open doing nothing) every minute or so my drive is banging away for a few seconds and my CPU usage is up to 22% for foxylady, WTF's it doing ?? FFS im on a black edition dual @ 2.9 Ghz, 22% !!!!!!!!!!
no extensions lol
just fully read the article, its FF3 with no extensions lol, bit unfair dont ya think ?? wtf use is foxylady without extensions O_o
Safari
Loving Safari's appetite for memory best browser ever? maybe not. suppose the mac fan boys will give me a grilling for this.Safari is trash and a memory hog...avoid it
Sheesh !!!Safari = 636 MB ??
Most apple software sucks for the PC
plus Safari security is awful in the PC
Apple should stick to Mac where they are good at...
Avoid Safari at all costs
Millions and millions?
How is a data point every 3 seconds for 14 hours equivalent to "millions of datapoints".You'd need to run that test suite 60 times to get over a million.
Only 1 bad browser in the bunch
Looking at the individual results Safari is the only poorly performing browser in that list. Looking at the results I'd actually say that there wasn't any noticable different between flock, opera and IE8. It's entirely possible that IE8's memory usage may stablise around that point but a plateau was never found within that limited test suite. Safari definately needs to be mocked, but i'm not entirely sure on the IE8 attack considering the stat's don't back this up and it's still in beta. Either way, kudos to Firefox 3, it looks to be an improvement on it's previous version (at least in memory management).Real world test?
Test? Hold on. It was a manual test with each browser. He doesn't say if he visited the same pages; or clicked on the same things; in fact it's insinuated he didn't. Heck he can't even remember if he went over 4 open windows or not.When even slashdot laughs at a "benchmark" where fireferret comes out top then really you have to conclude the methodology is suspect.
WOW Safari
I love how safari is marketed and talked about as being "the fastest browser on the market." Well, it should be if its going to consume 650MB of memory! Thats rediculous... I use firefox at home and am restricted to IE at work and I think firefox is the best choice. I have never used Opera though, so I cannot comment on it.Don't get me wrong...
I'm no M$ fanboy, but don't you think it's a little unfair comparing full releases of browsers against a beta release of IE?HAHA very funny
Reviewing the memory usage of a BETA product with ones that are already fully released. Gee, that's smart.somebody doesn't like miscrosoft...
Missing browser?
What happened to IE 6 or IE 7?safari, i can understand
Its in apples best interest to make all their windows software as bloated and buggy as they can get away with. my making peoples PCs suck, they can say "pc suck, buy a mac".Why else would they want to spend the time and money making free PC software?
internet explorer? well. you have to laugh, and wonder if all the rest of their stuff is coded like that (vista?) or maybe they really want people to buy a mac as well.
What do you want your RAM for then?
What's the point in having RAM if you don't want your applications to use it?Opera uses your RAM if its available, to make browsing faster. If it isn't then it won't. Unless the programme uses an inordinate amount of RAM (like Safari appears to be doing) then who cares?
It's like people who buy loads of power tools and mount them on the wall of their shed but never use them.
Talking of Safari, I thought Apples never needed fast CPUs or much RAM because the software was so much better and therefore didn't need it? I bought a PC with 512MB at the same time as a friend bought a Mac with 256MB and the story was that in 'real terms', the Mac had more memory than the PC. Utter tosh. Safari is proof they need more memory and the fact that Safari is a 23MB download while Opera is a fifth of that (Firfefox for Macs is also huge compared to the Windows version) is proof that they do need more storage too.
Safari
What a pig.More bias...
Interesting how you single out Safari and IE8 for your little quip about consuming all memory, considering IE8 was within only a few megabytes of half the browsers tested, while Safari was the only absurd one deserving of your comment. Not that I have any affinity for IE8 (I'm a FF3 user), but your baseless comment was notable.I'll explain.
It's pointless to test IE6/7 because nobody who' knows you can pick a browser would use them.Clear now?
Hmmm
I'm going to have to agree with the others that have said it's not a fair test comparing full releases to a bit. I rate this benchmark as time bandit.No IE7 memory usage test because it's a joke...
FF3 was tested against IE7 here...http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.html
memory?
try using k-meleon...it outdoes firefox 3.