# Firefox faster than Chrome? What?



## Tycho (Jul 8, 2009)

My mother seems to think so.  Claims pages load as fast or faster on Firefox as they do on Chrome.

Any precedent for this, anywhere else?


----------



## Utsukushii (Jul 8, 2009)

Actually, I can 1-Up that. Crazy Browser.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 8, 2009)

Not really, most rendering tests I've seen put Chrome and other Webkit/KHTML (because that's what it is >=|) browsers up over Firefox in terms of pageload speed, but it's usually a difference of fractions of seconds, which you probably won't notice either way. User interface speed is also a little better for Chrome, since Chrome's tabs are each individual processes that are independent of one another and hence don't slow down the entire UI/rendering of other pages while they're doing their thing, unlike Firefox which used to have insane issues with its UI completely freezing while rendering a page back in 2.0. It's mostly fixed, but the browser still slows down if you have a good few tabs running. I also find Chrome loads instantaneously either at a cold start or just opening tabs. But that's my experience.


----------



## Raithah (Jul 8, 2009)

Maybe she's counting from when something first appears on the page - at least from my experience, Chrome tends to wait for everything to load first and then display; as opposed to Firefox which does so incrementally, for lack of a better word. Oh, and doesn't Chrome use a different [JavaScript engine] than other Webkit-based browsers? I'm not sure if that has a huge impact on everyday surfing, but hey - it's a difference.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 8, 2009)

The javascript engine is supposedly superior in speed to most other Webkit browsers, but as I understand it, it's been matched by the new Firefox 3.5 engine. On its release, though, the V8 engine was vastly (and I do mean vastly) superior in performance to anything else around.

Javascript's only one part of the equation, but fast javascript means less awkward pausing while JS files are parsed, another thing the older Firefoxes used to have issues with (and IE, too).

It's kind of funny how Chrome's original goal was to reshape browser design under the hood, and it's really done a great job of doing it. We've got more emphasis on faster JS, responsive UI's, and now the Firefox team is also looking at separating tabs into processes (which has so many advantages it's not even funny). I'm still using Chrome for my primary browser because it loads so quickly and responds instantaneously, but I'm still keeping my eye on Firefox's progress. It's still leaps and bounds ahead of IE and Safari.

On that note, I think it's hilarious that my Firefox shortcuts and folders all still say "Firefox 3.1 Beta 3".


----------



## Shino (Jul 8, 2009)

Am I the only one that thinks that comparing browsers over a few milliseconds of difference is silly? I still remember when Safari was first released for Windows, they pushed that is was faster than anything else. So? It's still has a poor UI. If a better feature set means waiting a few more ms, I can handle it. Hell, I still remember when modems were measured in Baud, not bps...

But for the record, I think Chrome is supposed to be faster, but I think that's based on a FireFox 3.0 comparison...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 8, 2009)

It wouldn't surprise me, except that Chrome's also said to be the most compatible browser around right now.

So it being the fastest now strikes me as too good to be true.

But honestly, Firefox really isn't all that fast once you make it useful with addons. Opera's faster, in my experience. Now if only all websites were W3C-compliant.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 8, 2009)

> Am I the only one that thinks that comparing browsers over a few milliseconds of difference is silly?


Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the difference is going to be in fractions of seconds, and that's at the best of times. The big plus for me with Chrome is that it's responsive, the UI never freezes, and it loads up pretty much instantaneously. That's something not even Internet Explorer, which is pre-loaded more or less all the time in Win98SE+, can catch up to it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 8, 2009)

Firefox is better and faster then IE, in almost every way that I've seen, and Chrome had like...no add-ons, slowed down my gaming framerates, and had a bad UI. So I stick with firefox, it covers all my needs, and loads everything as fast as I could ever possibly want it to do so.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 8, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Firefox is better and faster then IE, in almost every way that I've seen


Um, please speak for yourself.
I've seen no difference between the two in terms of performance, personally. I just refuse to use IE for reasons of interface and extensibility.



> and Chrome had like...no add-ons, slowed down my gaming framerates,


If you run a web browser while gaming and _don't_ expect slowdown, your computer should be taken away and put in protective custody :V



> So I stick with firefox, it covers all my needs, and loads everything as fast as I could ever possibly want it to do so.


I'm still compelled to ask "why the hell are you running a web browser while gaming?"


----------



## Lukar (Jul 8, 2009)

Chrome used to be quicker than Firefox for me, but then I fucked it up with Java and it can't even load a Wikipedia page correctly. Firefox wins.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 8, 2009)

Lukar said:


> Chrome used to be quicker than Firefox for me, but then I fucked it up with Java and it can't even load a Wikipedia page correctly. Firefox wins.


...so Firefox wins because your dumb ass didn't break it?

Wow. As much as I like Firefox, I'm rather dismayed by all the stupid reasons for liking it other people have given lately ._.;


----------



## Raithah (Jul 8, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> ...so Firefox wins because your dumb ass didn't break it?
> 
> Wow. As much as I like Firefox, I'm rather dismayed by all the stupid reasons for liking it other people have given lately ._.;



Compatibility doesn't seem to be a bad reason for liking something. Plus, interpreted one way, lastdirewolf's comment might have referred to memory usage in Firefox which is, if I recall correctly, lower than Chrome's. The reason_ing_ might seem dull, but the reasons themselves make sense, to me, at least.


----------



## Sassy (Jul 8, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> It wouldn't surprise me, except that Chrome's also said to be the most compatible browser around right now.
> 
> So it being the fastest now strikes me as too good to be true.
> 
> But honestly, Firefox really isn't all that fast once you make it useful with addons. Opera's faster, in my experience. Now if only all websites were W3C-compliant.


chrome scores somewhere in the order of 78/100 on acid3; which is a web standards compliance test. safari 4 (which is multiplatform, unlike Chrome) scores 100/100. seems to me there's a new crown for "most compatible browser around right now". i agree tho; opera > firefox.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 8, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Um, please speak for yourself.
> I've seen no difference between the two in terms of performance, personally. I just refuse to use IE for reasons of interface and extensibility.
> 
> 
> ...



What, are you the browser police? You completely agreed with me on the UI and add-ons - "interface and extensibility", so what exactly is the problem?

Firefox doesn't drop my framerates as bad as Chrome does - I know that it does, trust me, but it's a lot more noticeably and worse with Chrome. 

For why I do, sometimes I use online music websites - like currently listening to streaming Devildriver songs from their new album, and otherwise check various websites and forums in between deaths or something.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 8, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> What, are you the browser police? You completely agreed with me on the UI and add-ons - "interface and extensibility", so what exactly is the problem?
> 
> Firefox doesn't drop my framerates as bad as Chrome does - I know that it does, trust me, but it's a lot more noticeably and worse with Chrome.
> 
> For why I do, sometimes I use online music websites - like currently listening to streaming Devildriver songs from their new album, and otherwise check various websites and forums in between deaths or something.


Sir, I maintain that you are an idiot and as such making the rest of us Firefox users look bad.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 8, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> If you run a web browser while gaming and _don't_ expect slowdown, *[you]* should be taken away and put in protective custody :V


Fix'd 



Satan Q. Jones said:


> But honestly, Firefox really isn't all that fast once you make it useful with addons.


Bah, of course it's not going to run very fast if you bog it down with add-ons!  If you're running a clean Chrome setup, you gotta compare it to a clean Firefox setup.

Me, I run my Firefox with only two add-ons: DOM Inspector and Flash.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 8, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Sir, I maintain that you are an idiot and as such making the rest of us Firefox users look bad.



You can maintain all you like, but it's unfounded, and we've even agreed on the first point, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

You said you refuse to use IE for reasons of interface and extensibility. I stated that it had no add-ons, and a bad UI. So we both don't like the interface, and both don't like the extensibility.

You said, "if you run a web browser and don't expect slowdown..." I never said that. I know they both lower my framerates, and as I explained later on, that Chrome has a more significant and noticeable impact.

You asked why I'm running a browser while gaming, it's a matter of listening to streaming music - Which obviously impacts gaming. This wasn't denied or anything. 

You then called me an idiot, and that I'm making FF users look bad. Please explain how, exactly, I am doing either.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jul 9, 2009)

Chrome has crashed twice with both FA and FAF at the same time. I've noticed it's been slowing down a bit, too, and that things tend to do some stuff that seems a little out of the ordinary or stopped doing normal functions before like the Ctrl + S key combo to make a post, or that the who *highlighted[/i] browser window will become stuck when I try to left click anything that is flash.... I have to click on another window to get unstuck. Even other tabs get frozen...

Also, I was trying FireFox on Linux earlier and I know I can never go to FF after using Chrome for so long. It's just way to awkward and bulky for me.*


----------



## Shino (Jul 9, 2009)

@Satan: Feeling bitchy today, are we? You and Pi should get together sometime.

Look, the reason why there are so many browers on the playing field today is because everyone has their own needs and each browser has a different user base: IE for corporations and those that see no need to ditch the pre-installed browser, Safari for Apple lovers and stats whores, Firefox for compatibility, add-on lovers and those that flame IE, Chrome for Google lovers and those that want Firefox but don't want Firefox, and Opera for those that feel the need to be a minority.

And no, I'm not looking for an argument or to be corrected here, I'm just putting my personal observations as an IT and fix-it guy out there.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Jul 9, 2009)

I have on my computer Safari, Firefox and Chrome, I have tested all the browsers on the same computer and on various sites. Here is what I found in order of what is the fastest.

#1 Chrome
#2 Firefox
#3 Safari

In fact Chrome is almost twice as fast as Firefox.


----------



## Sassy (Jul 9, 2009)

Shino said:


> @Satan: Feeling bitchy today, are we?


soon she'll come to realize the "i'm a super bitch, be afraid of me, yousaybitchlikeitsabadthing" routine is..pretty laughable, at best.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 9, 2009)

Shino said:


> @Satan: Feeling bitchy today, are we?


Oh, you~
I'm bitchy every day 



> Look, the reason why there are so many browers on the playing field today is because everyone has their own needs and each browser has a different user base: IE for corporations and those that see no need to ditch the pre-installed browser, Safari for Apple lovers and stats whores, Firefox for compatibility, add-on lovers and those that flame IE, Chrome for Google lovers and those that want Firefox but don't want Firefox, and Opera for those that feel the need to be a minority.


Or those who like all-in-one stuff.
Ironically, I hate all-in-one for everything else. Trekkies can keep their tricorders to themselves...

I'm just saying, complaining about one web browser slowing down your game more than another is like complaining that having chunky peanut butter in your fuel line slows down your car more than creamy. Why are you putting peanut butter in there to begin with?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

I like the addons for firefox I use, such as auto pager bbcode extender, addblock, and chatzilla.

But I like chrome for the "each tab is its own process" ability, and how much faster it really is than FF.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 9, 2009)

After having given it a try for the past 12-18 hours, I can confidently say I'd use Google Chrome as my main browser--if _only_ it didn't corrupt everything I downloaded.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Jul 9, 2009)

Heard Google keeps all you search records linked to you ip in there severs


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 9, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Heard Google keeps all you search records linked to you ip in there severs


Well, yeah, that's Google for ya.


----------



## Shino (Jul 10, 2009)

Well, yeah.

Google pretty much owns the internet at this point. Well, they have a copy of the damned thing, anyways. They've got records six ways from Sunday, and they're not going to stop anytime soon. Still, I feel a hell of a lot safer in the hands of Google than I would if Microsoft had that amount of records on me. Lesser of two evils, I guess. I'm still foolishly optimistic enough to believe in their "do no evil" creedo.

__________________
Google - The only ones that can say they've downloaded the internet.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

Shino said:


> Well, yeah.
> 
> Google pretty much owns the internet at this point. Well, they have a copy of the damned thing, anyways. They've got records six ways from Sunday, and they're not going to stop anytime soon. Still, I feel a hell of a lot safer in the hands of Google than I would if Microsoft had that amount of records on me. Lesser of two evils, I guess. I'm still foolishly optimistic enough to believe in their "do no evil" creedo.
> 
> ...


Um. The US Department of Defense caches every Internet-based data transaction. I'd be more worried about them than Big G and M$ combined.

Unless, of course, you're outside the US and only access content on servers outside the US. Then you might be safe.


----------



## Hir (Jul 10, 2009)

I'm impressed with Firefox 3.5. It really is faster than its previous versions.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

Where Darkness Lies said:


> I'm impressed with Firefox 3.5. It really is faster than its previous versions.


Now try it with useful extensions installed


----------



## Runefox (Jul 10, 2009)

> chrome scores somewhere in the order of 78/100 on acid3; which is a web standards compliance test. safari 4 (which is multiplatform, unlike Chrome) scores 100/100. seems to me there's a new crown for "most compatible browser around right now". i agree tho; opera > firefox.


Acid tests have NEVER had anything to do with the real world and have only ever been to test whether or not the browser has a specific implementation of the technologies and standards that it tests for (so really, a developer could design the model so that it renders Acid properly, but doesn't _really_ have any standards-compliance).

And even so, Chrome actually does score 100/100, seeing as how it actually does use the same rendering engine. So... No, there really isn't any sort of crown on Apple's head, nor do they deserve one.

And as far as Firefox goes, the Gecko engine actually renders said Acid test more accurately than the Presto engine does. My, but that's remarkable. Personally, I've never been a fan of Opera, particularly its heavily-skinned interface. Its speed is pretty good on low-end machines, however.



RoqsWolf said:


> Heard Google keeps all you search records linked to you ip in there severs



Guess what? They do that in Firefox, too. Why? Well, unless you want to go the conspiracy theorist way, it's to target ads and search results. If you DO, then it's so that the FBI can come beat your door down for looking at furry porn.



> Firefox doesn't drop my framerates as bad as Chrome does


Uh. Neither Firefox nor Chrome should really "drop" framerates unless either is taking up significant CPU time. Unless you've got very little RAM to work with and Chrome's vastly higher memory usage (each tab is a process, remember) causes more swapping in-game than Firefox does. ... In which case you really aren't blaming the right thing.

But yeah, Firefox 3.5 is pretty swift by comparison to its elders, and that's saying a lot considering how fast they were considered on release. I remember using it when it was called Firebird, I think version 0.6, and was blown away by how fast it was and most importantly how light it was, or at least, at the time.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 10, 2009)

Guys, do keep things civil thanks, I'd hate to close this thread so early.



Shino said:


> Look, the reason why there are so many browers on the playing field today is because everyone has their own needs and each browser has a different user base: IE for corporations and those that see no need to ditch the pre-installed browser, Safari for Apple lovers and stats whores, Firefox for compatibility, add-on lovers and those that flame IE, Chrome for Google lovers and those that want Firefox but don't want Firefox, and Opera for those that feel the need to be a minority.
> 
> And no, I'm not looking for an argument or to be corrected here, I'm just putting my personal observations as an IT and fix-it guy out there.


Not every Apple lover uses Safari, I always used Opera on my mac, but I stuck with Firefox on the PC because the extensions available have been rather useful, in particular: Domain Details and Adblock.
I have heard good things about Chrome but I didnt install it yet, and probably wont until the extensions I use are available on it, if that will even happen.
And most Opera users I know, do so because they find it faster than the alternatives and like how you can hide things from display so you have more space to display the website.



RoqsWolf said:


> Heard Google keeps all you search records linked to you ip in there severs


Every search engine keeps this data, and so does every website you visit, nothing new.


----------



## Lukar (Jul 10, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> ...so Firefox wins because your dumb ass didn't break it?



Mmhmm, pretty much. =3


----------



## Deleted member 19863 (Jul 10, 2009)

I'd like to meet your mother...


----------



## hollowx64 (Aug 7, 2009)

I have tried firefox and chrome, and they are awesome web browsers,  but..

I stick to firefox because of it have a lot of extensions that make it  something more that just a browser, a *lot *more must I say.

I've learn to tune up firefox so much, that it's faster than chome 3  beta. it uses less bandwidth and is very good to use it in a internet  cofee for example.

I must admit that tweaking and tunning firefox has saved me from a lot  of problems.

*Firefox for the win. ^^  *wags his foxy tail*

Got 94 on Acid3 test =3
*


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Aug 7, 2009)

I have Chrome, Firefox and Safari on this computer and Chrome is the fastest.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 7, 2009)

Another necro, but yes, Chrome is quicker on the draw, but it mostly has its architecture to thank for that. It can and will take a lot more memory for itself than any of the other browsers, which means unless you've got the spare RAM, you should stick with Firefox.


----------

