Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Will Opera claim the Javascript speed title?
A recent blog entry on the Opera web site states that "Carakan is currently about two and a half times faster at the SunSpider benchmark than the ECMAScript engine in Presto 2.2 (Opera 10 Alpha).
On my laptop running an Intel T5500, Opera 10 posts a total time of 5006.4ms. Even at 2.5 times faster, that's still not as fast as the 1410.2ms Chrome 2.0.160.0 puts up. In fact, the projected 2002.6ms time is 50% slower than Chrome.
That said, Sunspider is only a benchmark. What really matters is how browsers compare to each other in real use, and Opera 10 alpha certainly "feels" like it's competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
The Opera development team also reports that "other benchmarks" with which Carakan is already compatible report results that range from 5 to 50 times faster than Futhark. There's no mention of what the tests involved, but it's fair to say that if those numbers can be translated into real world performance Opera will be in a good position to throw down the gauntlet.
Comments
29
Subscribe to commentsFredFeb 7th 2009 11:07AM
I don't use opera because the top bar area is awfully thick. In firefox I get rid of the bookmarks bar and shrink the icons down. Chrome is naturally thinner as well.
mkoFeb 7th 2009 12:05PM
You can fully modify Opera's toolbar. You can remove, re-arange or add all buttons, custom searches etc..
Oh and even chrome were 10X faster than Opera it does not have 1/10 of Opera's features.
FredFeb 7th 2009 12:14PM
I guess it has more features, but I don't really need more than a web browser. I don't need the torrent manager, or the add-ons etc. I just want a browser with a clean interface and minimal bars across the top.
As far as speed, I found it depends on the computer. On my desktop (Quad core, 8gb ram, GTX260) Chrome and Opera are close enough that I couldn't say which is faster. On my netbook (Atom, 1.5gb ram, 120gb hd), Chrome is faster than ANY of the other browsers I have tried. And the better tab location helps alot.
ramonFeb 7th 2009 2:05PM
yeah mko is right, in fact opera is highly configurable compared to other browsers.
opera may be a little slower but its small memory footprint and a ton of useful features compensates for it.
In the end it is all about preference.
FredFeb 7th 2009 3:21PM
I have 8gb of ram, and on modern computers, 4gb of ram is pretty average. What do I care if Chrome uses more memory, as long as it's faster?
I guess I'm simplsitic. I want the basics+a bit more and that's it. The ability to save websites as app links to the desktop is great, plus the tab options.
GeirFeb 8th 2009 6:27PM
You obviously don't know Opera.
View > Full Screen
FredFeb 8th 2009 8:08PM
I could do that too in firefox or IE using F11. I don't want that. I still want my address bar and bookmarks menu button while taking up as little space as possible. Maybe it's the tabs that I dislike, they are rather thick...
SteveFeb 7th 2009 12:37PM
This is a pointless discussion. Microsoft always had a faster implementation of Java than anyone else. Then Sun sued to make Microsoft stop producing a better java engine. Sun won and Microsoft pulled their demostrably better engine off the market. There is no question that Sun's engine sucks but as long as they sue anyone who makes a faster one then what is the point of this discussuion?
Sure it is possible to make a faster Java engine than Sun makes. But since Microsoft was sued to make them stop making a better one there really isn't any competition anymore.
Being fast than Sun is no big deal except for the lawsuits from Sun.
Way to 'manage' that 'open source' proprietary Java: sue the better ones out of existence.
BlackAleFeb 7th 2009 1:48PM
You're confusing Java with Javascript.
BlackAleFeb 7th 2009 1:50PM
You're confusing Java with Javascript
mxxconFeb 8th 2009 4:35AM
wow Steve, you are extremely misinformed.
Java is not the same as Java Script.
MS's implementation of Java was not faster than Sun's. It just loaded faster because it was INCOMPLETE. It didn't have all the functionality that proper JRE supposed to have. Sun did not sue MS. MS voluntarily terminated their licensing with no pressure from Sun. Sun made Java open-source only last year. MS suspended development of their JRE in 2002 if not even earlier.
JCFeb 7th 2009 12:43PM
There are still too many sites that Opera doesn't render properly. I'd be more impressed to see them fix that than trying to be the fastest. Who cares how fast a page loads when it's all scrambled up and unreadable.
mkoFeb 8th 2009 11:26AM
There are some pages display unsupported browser warning to Opera.
But it doesn't mean Opera can't render those pages. Just mask as Firefox or IE.
It's a personal preference. Opera renders perfectly all the websites I visit regularly. Also I can't use a browser without a mail client. I find web mail just impractical. The only browser other than Opera with mail client is SeaMonkey I belive.
RocketboyFeb 7th 2009 1:05PM
JC, and who's fault is that? Here's some info about Opera 'incompatibilities'.
http://my.opera.com/xErath/blog/2007/01/02/the-world-through-a-google
and this post...
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1920192
JCFeb 7th 2009 2:07PM
That's true, but from an end user point of view it doesn't matter. People just want a browser that works, they don't care about some utopian idea of web standards. Opera has practically no market share so they aren't going to change the way people design their sites. The Gecko and Webkit engines have worked fine with all the sites I visit, and even Microsoft is slowly changing their proprietary ways. In the end regardless of who's fault it is, Firefox works with all my sites and Opera doesn't. It's obvious which one I'm going to use.
RocketboyFeb 7th 2009 6:09PM
" I'd be more impressed to see them fix that than trying to be the fastest. "
Well, then don't blame Opera, blame the websites. I have a tendancy NOT to use websites that do not work in my browser.
Which is no problem, because really, they are few an far in between.
AbscissaFeb 7th 2009 2:18PM
"Even at 2.5 times faster, that's still not as fast as the 1410.2ms Chrome 2.0.160.0 puts up."
Yea, but Chrome is ugly as sin (and infects your system with resident processes that just won't go away). I don't care how fast Chrome is, I'm not touching it. (Not that I use Opera either. Although I have been meaning to take another look at it, because I have plenty of gripes with Firefox, IE and Safari as well.)
FredFeb 7th 2009 3:19PM
So what browser do you use?
AbscissaFeb 9th 2009 4:55PM
FF2 with Winestripe, AdBlock Plus, FlashBlock, QuickJava, Tab Mix Plus, DisableBackspaceNavigation, Repagination, and a bunch of download-related stuff.
step21Feb 7th 2009 4:54PM
Still no one will use Opera ...