2006 showdown - Firefox 2 VS Opera 9.1
Wednesday, 27. December 2006, 18:00:00
Only a couple of days left of 2006, I thought it was a good time to compare the 2 best browsers out there, Opera 9.1 and Firefox 2. Browser speed comparisons can be found on this site, but it is rather technical and compares many (outdated)browsers.
My review will be quick and to the point, testing only the Windows versions of Opera and Firefox. First a bit about the setup:
Sites
The browsers were tested on
Processor usage/rendering speed
Today's processors are very fast, so saving big on CPU cycles does not mean that much to the average guy. However, it is an indication of clever programming. In my test, Opera and Firefox start out as equals, but Firefox does not scale as well as Opera. In the end, Opera uses approximately 50% of the CPU cycles Firefox does.
Memory usage
Computer memory is still a limited resource. Using less memory for the browser means it is free for other applications instead. Here, Opera starts out a bit greedy, immediately claiming around 30MB. However, when loading the next page, Firefox passes Opera's memory usage, and keeps on climbing. Once again, it shows that Firefox is not scaling as well as Opera, and the trend continues throughout the test. The final point in the graph is when the browser is minimized to the task bar. Opera lets go of 39MB, Firefox only lets go of 1MB.
Conclusion
Clearly, Opera is a more efficient browser. My crude test shows that Opera uses less memory and less CPU cycles than Firefox. To me that means that there is no need to switch to Firefox, although perhaps to you it means that you need to upgrade your browser?
Possible problem points
My review will be quick and to the point, testing only the Windows versions of Opera and Firefox. First a bit about the setup:
- Windows XP SP2
- AMD 2800 processor
- 1GB memory
- Both browsers are tweaked to my liking
- They were tested after a cold start
Sites
The browsers were tested on
- digg.com
- vg.no
- deviantart.com
- neowin.net
- slashdot.org
- my.opera.com
- ...then they were minimized to the taskbar.
Processor usage/rendering speed
Today's processors are very fast, so saving big on CPU cycles does not mean that much to the average guy. However, it is an indication of clever programming. In my test, Opera and Firefox start out as equals, but Firefox does not scale as well as Opera. In the end, Opera uses approximately 50% of the CPU cycles Firefox does.Memory usage
Computer memory is still a limited resource. Using less memory for the browser means it is free for other applications instead. Here, Opera starts out a bit greedy, immediately claiming around 30MB. However, when loading the next page, Firefox passes Opera's memory usage, and keeps on climbing. Once again, it shows that Firefox is not scaling as well as Opera, and the trend continues throughout the test. The final point in the graph is when the browser is minimized to the task bar. Opera lets go of 39MB, Firefox only lets go of 1MB.Conclusion
Clearly, Opera is a more efficient browser. My crude test shows that Opera uses less memory and less CPU cycles than Firefox. To me that means that there is no need to switch to Firefox, although perhaps to you it means that you need to upgrade your browser?
Possible problem points
- Opera had content blocker active, Firefox had no add-ons installed
- Opera was skinned with the default skin, Firefox' default skin is native
(86%)
there is a setting (not active by default) where, when FF is minimized, it lets go of memory just like most other browsers
By anonymous user, # 28. December 2006, 10:00:19
http://www.solo-technology.com/blog/2005/12/23/quick-firefox-tweak-free-mem/
Tested it, and it works. But the preference is not there by default, you have to add it manually.
By Helmers, # 28. December 2006, 14:05:57
What were tweaked? Why not include free-mem tweak to FF2(next time)?
> Opera had content blocker active
What rendering/mem comparsion you did measure then?
Either tweak it fair or use clean/fresh install. Also, make sure Flash is enabled and use at least 5 tabs with some browsing history in each.
That would be a useful comparsion ;)
By chp101, # 2. January 2007, 09:46:29
By Helmers, # 2. January 2007, 10:37:35