Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Debating Chamber > Internet, Web Apps and Networking

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09. Mar 2014, 06:14 PM   #1 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Default Firefox & its forks

Hi, this is my first post on this forum (or any forum, ever) and I want it to be an interesting one. I always wondered if Firefox forks are really faster than vanilla one and today I decided to conduct some tests. I used 3 websites to benchmark browsers: https://clubcompy.com/rwBench.jsp, http://browsermark.rightware.com/, http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/. I tested Firefox 27.0.1, Palemoon 24.3.2 (x86 & x64 versions), Waterfox 27.0.2, Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 (both Intel & AMD versions) and Firefox Aurora 29 with Australis interface. Each version was benchmarked right after installing with clean profile, default settings and without addons. Before testing another Firefox fork I uninstalled the previous one and rebooted my PC. Here are my test results:

ClubCompy 0.60:

Firefox 27.0.1 - 12209
Palemoon 24.3.2 x86 - 10813
Palemoon 24.3.2 x64 - 8998
Waterfox 27.0.2 - 10875
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 Intel Version - 12091
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 AMD Version - 11930
Aurora 29 - 12121

Browsermark 2.0:

Firefox 27.0.1 - 4714
Palemoon 24.3.2 x86 - 4441
Palemoon 24.3.2 x64 - 4173
Waterfox 27.0.2 - 4440
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 Intel Version - 4615
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 AMD Version - 4445
Aurora 29 - 5253

Peacekeeper:

Firefox 27.0.1 - 2142
Palemoon 24.3.2 x86 - 1753
Palemoon 24.3.2 x64 - 1617
Waterfox 27.0.2 - 2082
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 Intel Version - 2220
Cyberfox 27.0.1 x64 AMD Version - 1986
Aurora 29 - 2172

So, as you can see, vanilla Firefox was faster than all its forks, both x86 and x64 ones, and Aurora 29 was faster than Stable 27 in two out of three tests. Cyberfox test results are a little strange for me, because I have AMD processor, but Intel-optimized version performed better. I know that synthetic benchmarks and real-world performance are quite different things, but maybe this post will help someone to choose the right version for themselves. Thanks for reading and sorry for my English.
TH-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10. Mar 2014, 07:10 AM   #2 (permalink)
Site Manager
 
MidnightCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 15,285
Default

This sort of thing is OK but I don't know anyone who runs a browser without addons. They tend to give very different results when you start adding security extensions and add blockers of the type everyone should be running, and many do.
__________________
Buy a Hoover and prove technology sucks.
MidnightCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10. Mar 2014, 09:53 AM   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Default

I guess the most important reasons to use Firefox are its addons and customization potential, but I ran tests without addons to exclude their influence on performance. And because every user installs different set of addons. I just wanted to know if Palemoon, Waterfox & Cyberfox perform as advertised, cause every developer tries to convince users that "My version of Firefox is the fastest one!". That's why I shared results of these tests in the first place. But, maybe all this is really useless in real-world performance.
TH-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10. Mar 2014, 10:29 AM   #4 (permalink)
Site Manager
 
MidnightCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 15,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TH-9 View Post
But, maybe all this is really useless in real-world performance.
I'd say yes to this but appreciate your taking the trouble to make these tests and share the results here.
__________________
Buy a Hoover and prove technology sucks.
MidnightCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10. Mar 2014, 02:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Default

I'm more concerned with memoryCPU usage then overall speed, Well kind of want all three but speed is in the 3rd position
CASD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10. Mar 2014, 02:21 PM   #6 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Default

Well, as for memory and CPU usage, you can cut it down if you don't use Adblock. It is the biggest offender among addons in my opinion. As for alternative you can use Firefox in pair with Adfender, which can use the same subscriptions as Adblock, but doesn't strain your system.
And lets hope that Mozilla will optimize Firefox better in the future, especially for multicore processors.
TH-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.