MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
 ·Comcast
| Firefox vs. IE... speed diff.
I wouldn't even imagine that they would make a difference between which one I would choose as far as speed goes but I've noticed that IE is faster than that of Firefox. Which I've tested over the period of a good week. In IE I've seen speeds go from about 27 meg to 42 meg and with Firefox I'm hard pressed to see anything above 20 meg. Why???
Firefox speed tests:
IE speed tests:
All test were taken one after another at the same time of day on a Vista Machine... |
|
MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
·Comcast
| Note observed through speedtest.net also...
Firefox:
IE:
I wanted to know if anyone else has observed this... |
|
djdanska
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs:
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·T-Mobile US
 ·A + Net
·Mediacom
·RCN CABLE
| reply to MalibuMaxx
Ie
Firefox
Weird. But i have been using DownloadThemAll with firefox and it seems to max out the connection pretty good. Faster than the speed tests at least.
»https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/201
--
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
|
SparkChaser
BURY BECK
Premium
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to MalibuMaxx
 Weird
Firefox
IE 6
 [/URL]
--
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." -Albert Einstein |
|
centric
join:2005-07-31
Ann Arbor, MI | Browser cached in IE. It's that simple. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ | Doesn't FF also cache ? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to centric
said by centric  :Browser cached in IE. It's that simple. I would think it more likely a difference in the way the browsers handle scripting (Java, Flash) used by most speed test sites. Possibly the speed test server, itself, is optimized for MS Internet Explorer. I suspect a truer gauge of your download speed is to pull a large file from an FTP site with a large up load pipe; fast enough to saturate your download. As the cable companies pile on more speed, you may find it harder to locate such sites.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
gimmicky
@mcleodusa.net
| come on guys!! those speedtest sites are decent for a general guage but are not reliable at all! Like others have said, find a large file (like a linux iso) start the download and then see how fast it's going at the half way point. Then you can decide if IE is faster than firefox or whatever. |
|
deblin
Dark Side of the Moon
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
Middletown, DE
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :I suspect a truer gauge of your download speed is to pull a large file from an FTP site with a large up load pipe; fast enough to saturate your download. As the cable companies pile on more speed, you may find it harder to locate such sites. Indeed. I use »ftp://ftp1.optonline.net/test{64,512} for that sort of thing...
--
"The Dude abides." |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to MalibuMaxx
It depends. At atl.speakeasy.net I'm getting 15 - 18 Mbps in Firefox 2 and only 12 - 13 in IE 6. And when I was running Windows 98 SE (upgraded to XP reluctantly a few weeks ago), I actually got higher results when I moved the mouse around the screen. I got around 10M down when I didn't touch anything and 16+ when I moved the mouse as the test was running.
Differences in a Flash-based speed test don't represent differences in real-life scenarios (i.e. browsing web pages) anyway. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to gimmicky
said by gimmicky :
come on guys!! those speedtest sites are decent for a general guage but are not reliable at all! Like others have said, find a large file (like a linux iso) start the download and then see how fast it's going at the half way point. Then you can decide if IE is faster than firefox or whatever. Downloading one large file doesn't tell you much either. That has nothing to do with loading large numbers of images on a web page, HTTP pipelining, caching, etc. |
|
Homebrew1994
Betzwood Basement Brewery
join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA
| said by quatrix :said by gimmicky :
come on guys!! those speedtest sites are decent for a general guage but are not reliable at all! Like others have said, find a large file (like a linux iso) start the download and then see how fast it's going at the half way point. Then you can decide if IE is faster than firefox or whatever. Downloading one large file doesn't tell you much either. That has nothing to do with loading large numbers of images on a web page, HTTP pipelining, caching, etc. Downloading a large file to guage speed is valid test, if your normal usage consists of downloading large files.
On the other hand, if your normal usage consists of browsing web pages, then it makes more sense to measure how fast a page loads.
I don't d/l many files, so I dont care how fast it is.
I browse pages, so I care how fast they load.
I too have noticed that FF seems a lot slower than IE. Still, I really like FF and am sticking with it.
--
My other cyber-pasttime, Where's George
Miserable Failure |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| But downloading large files is more dependent on the TCP/IP stack and shouldn't vary much from browser to browser. If your main use is downloading large files, then you could just use a separate lightweight HTTP download manager and don't really need the browser at all. |
|
SparkChaser
BURY BECK
Premium
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to gimmicky
said by gimmicky :
come on guys! Come on gimmicky, we're not all that stupid to think that the speed is really that different. The question I had was, what causes the difference in reporting. A browser question, not a speed question.
FYI - OOLine D/L 64M file, FF 770KB/s, IE 885KB/s. Pretty much a draw. 
--
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." -Albert Einstein |
|
Homebrew1994
Betzwood Basement Brewery
join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA
| reply to Homebrew1994
said by Homebrew1994 :I too have noticed that FF seems a lot slower than IE. Still, I really like FF and am sticking with it. Odd,
I just got home and fired up both browsers.
D/L the 64M test file.
At the 25Mb point I noted the speed:
FF = 525kbs
IE - 472kbs
--
My other cyber-pasttime, Where's George
Miserable Failure |
|
rybshik
join:2006-06-14
Waterloo, ON | reply to MalibuMaxx
test |
|
Homebrew1994
Betzwood Basement Brewery
join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA
| reply to MalibuMaxx
Just came across this article testing the speed of different browsers.
I thought it was interesting.
»www.gt500.org/blog/index.php?ent···4-231203
--
My other cyber-pasttime, Where's George
Miserable Failure |
|
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| reply to MalibuMaxx
IE:
FF:
I also see a speed difference, but not as large as some other users. I am also running a higher powered machine than most though. 
Core 2 Duo E6600 OC'ed to 2.88GHz
3GB DDR2-800
DFI lanparty ATI-3200 chipset
150GB 10kRPM (OS)
75GB 10kRPM (GAMES)
ATI 1900XTX 512MB PCIe
Windows Vista 64-Bit Ultimate
Dual 22" Widescreen LCD's.
Network:
Gigabit connection to a 24 Port Netgear gigabit switch.
P4 @ 1.3Ghz w/ 384 RDRAM running m0n0wall with Netgear Gigabit cards.
Cable modem is a SB5100. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| reply to MalibuMaxx
I've never noticed a difference in speed tests between ie and FF.
What I HAVE noticed though is that for regular browsing, FF blows the doors off IE...especially with these tweaks applied.
»[FireFox] Tweaking Firefox for Fun & Speed
Kudo's goes to grail knight for a tweaking job VERY well done IMO.
(note: he also updates them part way into the thread)
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| said by Rick :I've never noticed a difference in speed tests between ie and FF. What I HAVE noticed though is that for regular browsing, FF blows the doors off IE...especially with these tweaks applied. » [FireFox] Tweaking Firefox for Fun & SpeedKudo's goes to grail knight for a tweaking job VERY well done IMO. Don't believe everything you read. Some of those settings make FF appear faster from a UI standpoint without actually improving performance. For example, he lowered nglayout.initialpaint.delay from 250 (default) to 50. According to Mozilla themselves, "Lower values will make a page initially display more quickly, but will make the page take longer to finish rendering." |
|
