In which X'o'Lore talks too much about random tech things
So I feel like talking about random computer technology stuffs now and then. Maybe some of you are interested? I don't know.
For tonight, I have browsers on the brain. I did some benchmarking.
(A link to my session is here, but any one can run more benchmarks on that session and mess up the results so maybe they've changed from the picture)
These are interesting scores to be sure. I'm not sure many people are even aware of the raw difference in speed from one browser to the next. Realistically, the bandwidth of one's internet connection is often a bigger speed bottleneck than the browser, but on the other hand, fast broadband connections and highly active client-side code has been on the rise. I know this. I've written such code.
IE really looks terrible. No surprise there. Lots of people complain about IE. It probably doesn't deserve the market share it has, but then for a base standard browser security is a big concern and IE is probably more secure than some people give it credit for. Still it's a lame dinosaur. IE9 is in the works. Perhaps that will pull IE into this competition for real. It's been looking promising.
Firefox really doesn't seem like the champ it once was. Maybe some people would be surprised by this. It's not the fastest by any metric and it comes stock with fewer features than almost any other browser. Well, maybe not less than IE. I'm not sure. Still, people cling to it if only because of the unmatched plugin system or the great customization options. Firefox did great things for browsers, but it's showing it's age. The next version can't come soon enough. They got big plans I know, but this is an old favorite that's really been looking unimpressive lately. Version 4 is in the works though and hopefully it will bring some much needed thunder.
Safari? Eh. It's fairly fast, but not the fastest. It's got some nice features, but nothing really standout in my mind anymore. I'm not exactly a big Apple fan so I haven't used it outside of testing purposes though. It wasn't too long ago they were making a push in the browser speed race. It seems they've slacked.
Chrome is interesting. Lots of neat things going on, and it's fast. Can't argue with that. Personally, I can't abide by the lack of customization though. Can't change what buttons you have or where they are and such. This is the fastest growing browser today. I think it's surpassed Safari. Number 3 it be. It's a long way to number 2 though, so we'll see. For computer-stupid people, this may be the browser of choice though. Quite simple.
Opera. What can I say? I used it for a while and can't seem to get away from it now. As the chart shows, it made even the mighty Chrome give up the crown in the speed war. Not sure how that happened, but here we are. I wouldn't doubt Google will find a way to take it back, but I can't imagine there's much they can do to speed things up more than they already have. I doubt they'll beat Opera by much anymore. Other big wins for Opera are in customization and features. This is actually where I get trapped with Opera. I simply can't modify other browsers to do all the crazy stuff I've done with this browser. I'm actually a bit astonished it has such a small marketshare for what is quite possibly the best browser.
I'd wonder what others think of their browsers. Why do you use what you use?
EDIT: removed comment about FF not being memory efficient. Among the browsers in question it is likely the most memory efficient at this time.
For tonight, I have browsers on the brain. I did some benchmarking.
(A link to my session is here, but any one can run more benchmarks on that session and mess up the results so maybe they've changed from the picture)
These are interesting scores to be sure. I'm not sure many people are even aware of the raw difference in speed from one browser to the next. Realistically, the bandwidth of one's internet connection is often a bigger speed bottleneck than the browser, but on the other hand, fast broadband connections and highly active client-side code has been on the rise. I know this. I've written such code.
IE really looks terrible. No surprise there. Lots of people complain about IE. It probably doesn't deserve the market share it has, but then for a base standard browser security is a big concern and IE is probably more secure than some people give it credit for. Still it's a lame dinosaur. IE9 is in the works. Perhaps that will pull IE into this competition for real. It's been looking promising.
Firefox really doesn't seem like the champ it once was. Maybe some people would be surprised by this. It's not the fastest by any metric and it comes stock with fewer features than almost any other browser. Well, maybe not less than IE. I'm not sure. Still, people cling to it if only because of the unmatched plugin system or the great customization options. Firefox did great things for browsers, but it's showing it's age. The next version can't come soon enough. They got big plans I know, but this is an old favorite that's really been looking unimpressive lately. Version 4 is in the works though and hopefully it will bring some much needed thunder.
Safari? Eh. It's fairly fast, but not the fastest. It's got some nice features, but nothing really standout in my mind anymore. I'm not exactly a big Apple fan so I haven't used it outside of testing purposes though. It wasn't too long ago they were making a push in the browser speed race. It seems they've slacked.
Chrome is interesting. Lots of neat things going on, and it's fast. Can't argue with that. Personally, I can't abide by the lack of customization though. Can't change what buttons you have or where they are and such. This is the fastest growing browser today. I think it's surpassed Safari. Number 3 it be. It's a long way to number 2 though, so we'll see. For computer-stupid people, this may be the browser of choice though. Quite simple.
Opera. What can I say? I used it for a while and can't seem to get away from it now. As the chart shows, it made even the mighty Chrome give up the crown in the speed war. Not sure how that happened, but here we are. I wouldn't doubt Google will find a way to take it back, but I can't imagine there's much they can do to speed things up more than they already have. I doubt they'll beat Opera by much anymore. Other big wins for Opera are in customization and features. This is actually where I get trapped with Opera. I simply can't modify other browsers to do all the crazy stuff I've done with this browser. I'm actually a bit astonished it has such a small marketshare for what is quite possibly the best browser.
I'd wonder what others think of their browsers. Why do you use what you use?
EDIT: removed comment about FF not being memory efficient. Among the browsers in question it is likely the most memory efficient at this time.
Comments
So I use Opera, although it still gives me problems with flash viewing and Adobe and stuff. Sometimes when I try and watch Daily Show or Colbert Report, the video player doesn't load correctly, and the fullscreen function doesn't work. Sometimes refreshing the page works.
I blame Windows7. My crappy laptop with XP and 3gb memory can run 20 Firefox tabs like a champ. Windows7 and Firefox shits at 2.
But Firefox working poorly in Windows 7, but nicely in XP seems odd.
Plus I can be an internet hipster. "Oh, I use Opera, you probably haven't heard of them, but they're really great". Mmmm. Sense of superiority.
Have a look:
Overall impression: Good god! Why are you still using this? It even has a permanent prompt urging you to switch to Firefox built right in.
I'd have to like, look up the site, and hit the download button, and I mean, come on. You can't honestly expect me to do all that.
But! I am a manic reader of tech news and I've got new, different things on the brain this night! Processors! So AMD had bought ATI some...4 years ago? And back then they said, "Hey! Dudes! We could, like, put a CPU and a GPU together. On the same chip. Wouldn't that be totally sweet!?" And the people of the world did verily scratch their heads and shrug. So anyways, they called this idea "Fusion" and put down a date. 2008 or maybe 2009 they said. In a case of Duke Nukem Forever Syndrome, it never happened. BUT! Possibly like DNF, this much delayed concept will be coming soon. Not just from AMD but also "Me Too" copycat Intel.
In the Intel corner they have code name "Sandy Bridge". This is a next generation processor with a built in Intel graphics core. I know what your thinking. Intel graphics suck. Seriously though, for what might be the first time ever, Intel seems like they might actually take graphics somewhat seriously. They'll be able to achieve double the performance of the GPU's taped to the Core i3/5 processors that came out earlier this year. Those are in the same ballpark as AMD's current integrated graphics. Granted AMD's integrated graphics haven't seen a performance increase in a few years, but that's something. At double that performance level Intel's integrated could actually match the slowest current Radeon card for performance. That's not too shabby for something that you basically get for free. Shit could get interesting.
On the AMD side, They got a few code names floating around for Fusion projects. One is called "Llano" which will feature a quad-core processor based on AMD's current Phenom II architecture or so I hear. It'll also have graphics performance that'll make Intel's Sandy Bridge parts cry, but not really enough for anyone who actually likes playing nice PC games on big screens. The down side is that this one is running behind. It's supposed to be built on a new fabrication process compliments of Global Foundries (there's another story there), but they wanted a couple extra months to work the kinks out on that. Just as well. I'm not sure if people will value the superior built-in graphics enough to consider this over Sandy Bridge which will no doubt have better CPU power.
So AMD's first-out-the-gate Fusion is going to be "Ontario" which will be made compliments of TSMC on a somewhat less awesome fabrication process that's primarily used for modern graphics cards at this time. Specs suggest this will be a netbook part to compete against Intel's Atom processors. They also suggest it could fare quite well against the sluggish Atom. There's also a faster version that will aim a little higher, but I suspect as it enters the territory of Intel's CULV platform, it'll face some tougher competition. Some curiosities here is that the processor portion of these parts will be based on AMD's new "bobcat" architecture. A low power deal much like Intel's Atom. Also, these will be the first x86 processors built by TSMC. (yet another story)
It'll be interesting to see what comes of all of this.
[Chrome 6.0.472.55] -> 8036
[Opera 10.62] -> 6392
As expected, Google wouldn't stand to sit in second on speed. It's the main selling point of their browser. Opera meanwhile slipped back a bit. Goes to show how fast stuff can change. This is only one benchmark and not too scientific (I have other programs running). Just gotta get Firefox 4 in there when it's out.
On a different note Google's new instant search is creepy but fun. It's a piece of tech from Google Wave which is now slated for the chopping block at years end. So yeah. Apparently we never used Wave? And nobody else did either so it seems.
That may just be my line of thinking though. With larger drives, backups become a bit trickier. The only real way to backup data if you start getting that much is with another harddrive.
EDIT: Mission successful. Neato.
I'd be curious how nVidia will respond to this steam deal. I haven't caught word of any response yet.
Edit: Whoop, maybe it doesn't update my graphics card, ah well, still faster then looking for them all myself.
Intel Processor Performance Upgrade Card Boosts Your Chip For $50