Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) Beta 1 vs. Safari 3.1 vs. Firefox 3.0 vs. Opera 9.5 vs Flock (Firefox 2.0) – Browsers Memory Battle #2

By Vygantas Lipskas | July 1, 2008 | 5 Comments

Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) Beta 1 vs. Safari 3.1 vs. Firefox 3.0 vs. Opera 9.5 vs Flock (Firefox 2.0)After yesterdays post about web browsers memory usage, Morbus provided a great link to Sam’s post which contains graphs and more detailed information. Here’s a conclusion from that link:

Safari 3.1
Safari on Windows shows extremely poor memory management, and I do not know whether it ever reaches a high water mark. If this is by design, it is certainly a design that looks inefficient and seems to contradict Apple’s marketing.

Firefox 3.0
This browser exhibits memory usage that is by far lower than the others. It releases memory to the system and the trend line is nearly flat.

Flock (based on Firefox 2.0)
Flock did very well and this browser and Firefox 2.0 could likely be run for long periods without causing many problems. The extensions probably reduced the efficiency somewhat.

Opera 9.5
Opera’s performance was about as good as Firefox 2.0 (Flock), and it could likely be used for very lengthy sessions. However, Kestrel is certainly not a revolutionary or even notable technology in this arena.

Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1
IE did well in the profile, although a worrying trend in the data could indicate that it would keep escalating. However, this browser could likely sustain many hours of moderate usage.


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://morghus.com Morghus

    I struggle at seeing the point in these tests. Unless there’s a catastrophic amount of memory used, to the point of being crippling, it’s redundant information, no?

    I mean, most people should be getting so much RAM now it’s more of a question of “which browser spends the least time in surfing the top 100 most popular websites” or something, instead of these stupid nitpicking tests that exclusively target specifics we won’t notice in any real setting.

    Or am I completely off base here? Just the way it seems anyways.

  • alex

    Can you please stop blogging about something you don’t have any clue? It’s really pointless to compare the memory usage of 4 different softwares (if there is no crazy big amount of differences)?
    1) You don’t know what the memory is used for, it’s probably used for something good. (eg. fast history browsing in this context)
    2) Why do you think I want my browser to use as little amount of memory as possible? If I have 4 gb of RAM, it’s because I want the software to use it for something usefull!

    I just love the previous comparisons of Firefox with no add-ins at all and Opera with several features enabled. Why not test total mem usage of Thunderbird + Firefox vs Opera with Opera Mail.

  • Wiki

    I don’t believe it

  • MEGAERA

    I WAS VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF SAFARI THAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT…ITS SPEED.
    I’M MORE OF A FIREFOX GUY. BUT WHEN I INSTALL IT AND PUT IT ON A TEST RUN…DAMN!!! IT REALLY IS LIGHTING FAST. IT RUNS VERY SMOOTHLY ON MY CORE 2 DUO, 2GB RAM MACHINE…BETTER THAN FIREFOX 3.

  • http://www.bluecirclet.com/ ameo

    unbelievable

«
»