查看完整版本: 浏览器性能对比:IE vs Firefox vs Opera vs Safari

浏览器性能对比:IE vs Firefox vs Opera vs Safari

ZDnet用了7页的报告[url=http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/software/internet/soa/Browser-faceoff-IE-vs-Firefox-vs-Opera-vs-Safari/0,139023437,339289417-1,00.htm][color=#184675]比较了世界上最流行的4个浏览器[/color][/url]：IE，Firefox，Opera，Safari。它使用了[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBench][color=#184675]iBench[/color][/url]和[url=http://webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html][color=#184675]SunSpider[/color][/url]作性能基准测试软件，测试平台为Windows Vista SP1和Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard，结果丝毫不出人意料：
虽然其中有一些还是beta测试版本，浏览器性能排名如下：Firefox和Safari走在Opera和Internet Explorer各个版本前面。将在6月发布的Firefox 3，性能超越，内存占用很低。没有其它浏览器在打开多个网站时内存使用比Firefox 3 Beta 5更少，只有极小部分网站在浏览器下显示出错。Safari和Opera，有着相同程度的兼容性问题。

[table][tr][td][b]Motherboard[/b][/td][td]Gigabyte GA-X38T-DQ6[/td][/tr][tr][td][b]Memory[/b][/td][td]4x 1GB Aeneon Xtune DDR3-1333[/td][/tr][tr][td][b]Processor[/b][/td][td]Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9650 (3.6GHz)[/td][/tr][tr][td][b]Hard disk[/b][/td][td]Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB ST3750640AS[/td][/tr][tr][td][b]Graphics card[/b][/td][td]ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT[/td][/tr][/table]
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_1_423.jpg[/img] Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_2_423.jpg[/img] Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_3_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=423,1044]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_4_1044.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_5_423.jpg[/img] Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_6_423.jpg[/img] Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_7_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,923]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_8_923.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_7_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,923]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_8_923.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.
[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_11_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_12_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_13_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.

[img=432,423]http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339289417/browsers_graph_14_423.jpg[/img] Timings in milliseconds: shorter bars are better.