Battery Life: Internet Explorer 8 vs. Firefox 3.5 vs. Chrome 2 vs. Opera 9 and 10 vs. Safari 4

By Vygantas Lipskas | September 12, 2009 | 10 Comments

Now here is something completely different. Guys at AnandTech has decided to find out, how web browser affects battery life.

They have tested the following web browsers:

Internet Explorer 8
Firefox 3.5.2
Firefox + AdBlock
Chrome 2
Opera 9.64
Opera 10 Beta 3
Safari 4

Results (more is better):

AMD: Browser Battery Life
AMD Browser Battery Life

Intel: Browser Battery Life
Intel: Browser Battery Life

Netbook: Browser Battery Life
Netbook: Browser Battery Life

For more details, be sure to visit original post.

[digg-reddit-me]


About (Author Profile)


Vygantas Lipskas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism carrier back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

  • http://metude.blogspot.com/ metude

    Why are you using Opera 10 b3?
    Opera 10 is out.

    • http://www.favbrowser.com Vygantas Lipskas

      Well, maybe they have tested Opera first and there was beta 3 only (as it takes time to get results) however, they said:

      Opera 10 Beta 3 didn’t do as well as Opera 9.6.4, and in a couple quick tests it doesn’t appear that the final release of Opera 10 changes the situation at all.

  • http://drrdb.blogspot.com/ Rudradeep Biswas

    they would test with Opera 10 stable release ! and Opera has a policy to keep options for recycled tab and auto saved sessions. speed dials, visual tabs also shell out battery quickly !

  • Dev

    They should tested Opera with Plugins disabled (no Flash where I dont want it)

  • FluMan

    A side-note that might be of interest:
    Some servers send different HTML depending on browser client ID.

  • http://my.opera.com/Jurgi/ Jurgi

    Very strange for me, that Opera 10 has worse result than Opera 9. On my comp “10″ uses noticably less CPU power while rendering, I would say that even 10 or 20 times less.
    How was it done? With loading pages, or the comps were just left idle? Haw was settings done (skins, font smoothing, smooth scrolling, visual tabs open or closed, etc)?

    • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

      They’ve used Opera with default options for sure.
      I don’t care, f*ck them all, Microsoft is the biggest company and bought the winner-ticket from AnandTech =D, as well I don’t have a battery.

      It’s a Opera boycott, kkkkkkkkkkk
      =X

      It won’t let me down. Ah ok I don’t know more stupid thing to type in so goodbye. XOXO’

  • nobody

    it is because of that all new ‘unused stuff’ that ‘doesnt affect a user at all’ that were added in opera 10 – unite, turbo etc.

    anyonde dealing with batery powered devices know, that the less internet use, the longer batery life. it is the deciding factor with stuff like wifi/gsm connections

    opera pings opera mini servers even if turbo is turned off etc. same goes for mail client – it is still there and that eats cpu cycles etc.

    until opera gives users ability to really turn this stuff off (instead of hidding it in the UI) results will not change, and with each new feature opera will go down (well, it cant anymore) and eat batery quicker.

    btw, why safari is so low, i dont know, bad part from mac or something?

    • Thoe

      Yeah, Unite in 10.0 is sure to ramp up the CPU use. And the new email client in 10.0 likewise. It’s not like there was an email client in Opera 9, right?

      “nobody” strikes again…

      BTW, where did you get the idea that Opera “pings” the Mini servers when Turbo isn’t being used?

  • http://my.opera.com/IceArdor IceArdor

    What’s wrong with Safari? Were they using it to watch porn or something?

«
»