Mac OS X Browsers Benchmarked

Mac OS X Browsers Benchmarked

중요한 부분만 초 간단하게 제 멋대로(?) 의역합니다.

 

그리고 단순한 속도비교 이므로 국내사이트를 많이 이용한다면 참고만 하시는게 좋겠죠.

우리나라 웹환경은 막말로 "뭐" 같으므로...

 

 

Mac users have more browsers to choose from then any other platform. The question is, which one delivers the most performance? Last year we tested four of the most popular browsers and found that OmniWeb (which uses a tweaked version of Apple’s WebCore engine) and theWebKit nightly buildmore or less tied on the test suite.

 

Several factors have changed since then, so we decided to test again.Here’s what’s different in this test:

• We used a new iMac. Users Intel-based Macs now account for the majority of our visitors (though not by much — 48% still use PowerPC Macs). Even so, we thought it fair to test on an Intel Mac this time, because the architectures are different enough to warrant for performance discrepancies.
• We used the latest versions of the browsers. Apple’s Safari has not been updated for a long time, which is why we usedthe WebKit nightly, datedFri Mar 30 12:12:44 GMT 2007. We also used the updated FireFox 2.0.0.3. The other browsers’ versions are as follows: Camino 1.0.4, OmniWeb 5.5.4, Opera 9.10.
• Updated test suite.We developed the test to benchmark HTML and Image loading, CSS rendering, and JavaScript performance to determine how fast the browser loads an average page.

Our test machine was a24″ iMacequipped with 2 GB of RAM and a 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo processor.

All the tests were run from a local drive, because the speed of a page loading from an external server depends on external factors and is not a reliable way to gauge browser speed. In all tests, shorter times are better.

The tests

 

 

For the HTML test, we loaded the same document on every browser and timed the result using a script. The document contained a large amount of typical elements of a site’s stucture.

HTML 테스트를 위해, 우리는 모든 브라우저가 같은 파일(HTML문서)을 읽게해서 속도를 냈다

문서에는 많은 일반적인 요소들을 포함했다.

 

Camino fared very poorly on this test, probably because it uses an older version of Gecko that isn’t optimized nearly as well as it should be.

완벽하지 않는 Gecko 의 예전버전을 사용한 카미노가 이 테스트에서 제일 구리게 나왔다.

FireFox, on the other hand, was surprisingly fast, thanks to the Intel-processor

불여우는 인텔프로세서에 덕분에 놀랄만큼 빨랐다.

optimizations in version 2.0. The fastest result for this test was OmniWeb, as usual.

제일 빠른놈은 평소와 마찬가지로옴니웹이였다.

 

수치가 작을 수록 좋다

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the CSS render test, we timed how long it took every browser to render 2,500 div elements to get an idea of how fast it would take, on average, to load a CSS layout.OmniWebwon here, too. Between the Gecko browsers, even FireFox lagged far behind Safari on this one.

수치가 작을 수록 좋다

 

 

 

 

In the image load test, FireFox produced very poor performance, taking even longer thanCaminoto load several hundred small images.

수치가 작을 수록 좋다

 

 

 

 

 

JavaScript performance is a crucial factor in how long it takes a browser to load page, now that AJAX and JS effects are so popular.

 

OmniWebcame in first on the JavaScript test as well, and Camino was the second fastest on this test. We weren’t able to complete the test on Opera, so we don’t have an idea of how well it handles JavaScript-heavy pages.

오페라 브라우져는 로딩을 완료하지 않아서 테스트를 끝내지 못했나 보다.

덕분에 오페라가 얼마나 빨리 자바스크립트 페이지를 불러오는지(잘 다루는지) 알 수 없다.

Overall, there are only minute differences between the browsers on this one.

 

수치가 작을 수록 좋다

 

 

 

Now that we had an idea of how the browsers performed, we decided to test how FireFox performed on PowerPC systems. Using a dual-processor 1.42 GHz G4 tower with 1 GB of RAM, we ran the HTML load test on WebKit and FireFox for comparison purposes.

Naturally, the G4 yielded slower results on the test, but the test was interesting nonetheless. On the iMac, WebKit and FireFox took about the same time to complete the test. On the G4, however, FireFox took almosttwice as longto complete the test as WebKit! It really tells a lot about FireFox’s PowerPC optimization.

If you’re using a PowerPC-based Mac, it doesn’t hurt to keep these stats in mind…

The results

In conclusion, we had a look at what browsers our visitors use.

"외국사이트 라서 사파리 비율이 높군요"

OmniWeb is missing from the list (maybe because it reports itself as Safari? Dunno…) but we noticed that 93% of those using Safari use Build 419.3 (version 2.0.4). While we didn’t test this particular version, we can say that the WebKit nightly builds we do testing with are a vast improvement over 419.3. They’re not for everyone and can be buggy, but if you don’t want to pay for OmniWeb and would like faster page loading performance,give them a try.