# Futuremark Launches Peacekeeper Web Browser Benchmark



## malware (Mar 12, 2009)

Futuremark Corporation today unveiled Peacekeeper, a free online benchmarking tool for measuring and comparing the performance of common internet browsers. Competition between browsers has never been as hotly contested, nor have internet users had as many choices as they do now. The big five: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera, see regular releases of new and innovative features and each camp's fans keep many a forum and blog busy. So far, words have been the only shots fired in the long-running browser wars. Now, with Peacekeeper web users finally have an easy to use, impartial tool for measuring and comparing the performance of different web browsers. Peacekeeper is a new online benchmark from Futuremark that realistically simulates the load placed on the browser by common JavaScript functions as used by popular, modern websites. For users who prioritize speed and performance, Peacekeeper helps answer the question of which browser is best for them.


Jukka Mäkinen, Head of PC Products and Services at Futuremark, said, "People have more choice now in how they experience the internet than ever before. But they may not realize that performance between browsers can vary dramatically, especially on lower-end PCs. With Peacekeeper, it's simple to compare different browsers and see which one offers the best performance on your PC."

Many websites, such as social networks, video sharing communities and webmail services, place a heavy load on the web browser. For people who use these sites a lot, changing browsers to one that performs faster can make visiting those sites more fun, with less waiting for pages to load and display correctly. Peacekeeper makes that choice easier than ever.

Web users can run Peacekeeper now by visiting http://www.futuremark.com/peacekeeper

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 12, 2009)

I actually misread that the first time around and thought futuremark released a web browser


----------



## renozi (Mar 12, 2009)

man, is safari that fast??


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 12, 2009)

I benched Firefox, and it crashed.  I guess I've gotta up the vWeb voltage...


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 12, 2009)

DanishDevil said:


> I benched Firefox, and it crashed.  I guess I've gotta up the vWeb voltage...



Might need Water cooling if your going to up the volts


----------



## shiny_red_cobra (Mar 12, 2009)

Works fine for me...

Firefox (v3.0.7) Scored:
427 Points
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7700 (2.4 GHz)
GPU: NVIDIA Quadro FX Series


----------



## DaveK (Mar 12, 2009)

I got 408 points with Firefox v3.1b2


----------



## Cold Storm (Mar 12, 2009)

536 

I can't believe Safari had the highest at 2264...


----------



## leonard_222003 (Mar 12, 2009)

From the people that are known to favore the one who gives more money comes a new benchmark that is impartial  , futuremark is becoming a joke and i'll be glad if they ever go bankrupt.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Mar 12, 2009)

I got 609 with FF 3.0.7.


----------



## erocker (Mar 12, 2009)

leonard_222003 said:


> From the people that are known to favore the one who gives more money comes a new benchmark that is impartial  , futuremark is becoming a joke and i'll be glad if they ever go bankrupt.



Who cares?!  It's a free gimmiky benchmark.  Why so serious?


----------



## mlee49 (Mar 12, 2009)

Wow I'm a bench whore.  I had to run it on my work computer and results are crap.  300 pts for Firefox with 3/tabs open.  150pts for IE7 w/3 tabs open.


----------



## mdm-adph (Mar 12, 2009)

renozi said:


> man, is safari that fast??



The new version 4 is.  However, it's very beta and not exactly ready for widespread use yet. 

This is actually a really cool test -- I'd love to see some of the work that went into making it.



leonard_222003 said:


> From the people that are known to favore the one who gives more money comes a new benchmark that is impartial  , futuremark is becoming a joke and i'll be glad if they ever go bankrupt.



I really don't think there's much connection between Futuremark and Apple, considering that in most people's minds (not just enthusiasts) Apple != Gaming.


----------



## leonard_222003 (Mar 12, 2009)

I guess it's nothing wrong if it's free but i wouldn't trust any number or score from futuremark , as soon as anyone of importance gives the freaks ( futuremark) attention ( like microsoft using this in a slide to compare perf. or some other important company  ) the benchmark becomes corupt in scores and who is best.
So everyone treat it like a free unimportant program and we will be ok.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 12, 2009)

705 with Firefox


----------



## Cold Storm (Mar 12, 2009)

leonard_222003 said:


> I guess it's nothing wrong if it's free but i wouldn't trust any number or score from futuremark , as soon as anyone of importance gives the freaks ( futuremark) attention ( like microsoft using this in a slide to compare perf. or some other important company  ) the benchmark becomes corupt in scores and who is best.
> So everyone treat it like a free unimportant program and we will be ok.



But, what a bench mark can do is way more then be a E-p3n1s building tool.. It can show stability in your system... Also shows others the ability that the product can do in a system similar.. 

So, to you, if a company says that their card "can do" 75-80fps in COD 4, your going to believe it, and then not complain because yes, it can do 75-80fps, but only with a certain set up?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 12, 2009)

Opera FTW!






Ie7 FTMFL!


----------



## doomsdaybg (Mar 12, 2009)

looks nice

Chrome (v2.0.169.1) Scored:
1452 Points


----------



## chaotic_uk (Mar 12, 2009)

it wont work for me lol , using ie7 in vista and i get the quote below 



> Unsupported browser
> Your browser is unsupported. Only Internet Explorer 6 and higher are supported.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 12, 2009)

Firfox(3.0.7)= 552


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 12, 2009)

erocker said:


> Who cares?!  It's a free gimmiky benchmark.  Why so serious?



True, nothing earth shattering.


----------



## Silverel (Mar 12, 2009)

i got 794 in gChrome


----------



## Urbklr (Mar 12, 2009)

519 with Firefox 3.0.6, neat. What is the point of this again?


----------



## kyle2020 (Mar 12, 2009)

1422 on chrome with 3 tabs open. Not too shabby


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 12, 2009)

Urbklr said:


> 519 with Firefox 3.0.6, neat. What is the point of this again?



Just to see the performance of your web browers, but still its not really important in general. Its not like where OCing em.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 12, 2009)

WARNING!  

Don't run F@H while doing this!  It makes you fail!


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 12, 2009)

Run it without it and see how much it went up.


----------



## BOSE (Mar 12, 2009)

Firefox 3.0.7 - 517

Safari 4 Beta - 1543

You can actually see the difference between the two.


----------



## OnBoard (Mar 12, 2009)

Now how do I OC FireFox? (558 points)

Those rendering test ran like poo  Now that there is a benchmark, hope someone codes firefox faaaast, only beating IE is kinda lame. Come on fox, you can run faster


----------



## Binge (Mar 12, 2009)

779 with 5 tabs open on Firefox 3.0.7


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 12, 2009)

1666 - safari 4


----------



## Valdez (Mar 13, 2009)

minefield 3.2a1 64bit = 432p
ff 3.0.7 = crashed

There is processorlimit anyway, and uses only 1 core


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 13, 2009)

I get 602 in Firefox. I tried Safari but it's not faster than Firefox and the UI is stupid. I also have a mutual dislike of anything apple.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 13, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I get 602 in Firefox. I tried Safari but it's not faster than Firefox and the UI is stupid. I also have a mutual dislike of anything apple.



Agreed, but the Ipod is not that bad.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 13, 2009)

Valdez said:


> minefield 3.2a1 64bit = 432p
> ff 3.0.7 = crashed
> 
> There is processorlimit anyway, and uses only 1 core



Multi-threaded browsers are kind of pointless anyway


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Mar 13, 2009)

My results:

1362 On chrome with Core 2 6420 @ 3200mhz


----------



## PEPE3D (Mar 13, 2009)

*Here is my score*

I never though safarai was that fast. I usually use firefox, like it a lot.


----------



## erocker (Mar 13, 2009)

Not too bad for Internet Explorer 8(I guess)


----------



## wolf (Mar 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> Who cares?!  It's a free gimmiky benchmark.  Why so serious?



why so serious indeed.

does anyone really have a speed (fps ) issue when browsing the net, that's not a internet speed limitation?


----------



## 3xploit (Mar 13, 2009)

chrome is doing pretty good too


----------



## freakshow (Mar 13, 2009)

safari is pretty cool


----------



## AddSub (Mar 13, 2009)

Chrome 2.0 dev channel release, score: 2268

System: i7-920 CPU, 6GB of RAM, EVGA X58 motherboard.






I don't think the Futuremark folks are updating their database. Notice how in the bottom left corner it shows someone's "Fastest system" as Safari 4.0 with score of 2264.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2009)

Yet another Futuremark gimmick: "this is the fastest processor and graphics card, GET IT". Like having GeForce GTX 280 has anything to do with browser performance.


----------



## Cheeseball (Mar 13, 2009)

It'll be weird if someone was able to get a web browser to handle page rendering through the use of GPGPUs. At least once your connection has downloaded the content, it'll display really quick. LOL.


----------



## Bl4ck (Mar 13, 2009)

DaveK said:


> I got 408 points with Firefox v3.1b2


hmm ?   i've got 580ish with 3.0.7 :F  
Opera 10 Alpha scores above 1000 around 1060 ,

based on 6gb of ram, Vista x64 , and Wolfdale @ stock 3167Mhz (E8500)  , i guess its all about the "http pipelining " enabled within Firefox , and the java engine within the browser. 



DrPepper said:


> Multi-threaded browsers are kind of pointless anyway



hmm i won't agree , check the stats for Chrome (best use of multi core cpu's) and then Safari ,    and check again Opera 9 series on multi core cpus, you will see that Opera for example scores lower with multi core cpus then with 1 core ;F  
People tend to forget that Web browser today runs applications based on Java,Flash, ect.  Check the Quake Live for example. 

sry for post after post ;/


----------



## SeanG (Mar 13, 2009)

Boy its really pissing me off that some people can load a web page a few milliseconds faster than me.


----------



## DaveK (Mar 13, 2009)

Bl4ck said:


> hmm ?   i've got 580ish with 3.0.7 :F
> Opera 10 Alpha scores above 1000 around 1060 ,
> 
> based on 6gb of ram, Vista x64 , and Wolfdale @ stock 3167Mhz (E8500)  , i guess its all about the "http pipelining " enabled within Firefox , and the java engine within the browser.



I have a fairly low-end system and was running a defrag lol. Might do it again, probably not a good idea to run stuff like that during a benchmark  I also have a measly 2GB RAM lol


----------



## z1tu (Mar 13, 2009)

AMD 7750BE, 2GB RAM, Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3  i scored 608 with 2 tabs and then ran it again with 3 and scored 609 )


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 13, 2009)

Bl4ck said:


> hmm i won't agree , check the stats for Chrome (best use of multi core cpu's) and then Safari ,    and check again Opera 9 series on multi core cpus, you will see that Opera for example scores lower with multi core cpus then with 1 core ;F
> People tend to forget that Web browser today runs applications based on Java,Flash, ect.  Check the Quake Live for example.



I still can't see why a browser would need more than one core. Its supposed to be lightweight and efficient.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I still can't see why a browser would need more than one core. Its supposed to be lightweight and efficient.



For people doing heavy multiple things on each browser maybe. Plus it takes stress off the one core to to allow the browser to run at a fast pace.


----------



## kid41212003 (Mar 13, 2009)

1777


----------



## Dark_Webster (Mar 13, 2009)

This using Vista and Firefox 3.0.7 .


----------



## FilipM (Mar 13, 2009)

Looks like no-one broke the 700 mark with a Mozilla


----------



## mdm-adph (Mar 13, 2009)

File_1993 said:


> Looks like no-one broke the 700 mark with a Mozilla
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090313/pacekeeper.jpg



Tried Firefox 3.1 Beta yet?  I wonder why it's not even on the list -- it's probably as fast as Safari 4.


----------



## FilipM (Mar 13, 2009)

Is there a 3.1 beta already? 3.0.7 is the best ive used so far, havent crahsed even once


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 13, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> For people doing heavy multiple things on each browser maybe. Plus it takes stress off the one core to to allow the browser to run at a fast pace.



Yeah but then just stick it on the 2nd or 4th core.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> Who cares?!  It's a free gimmiky benchmark.  Why so serious?



Indeed... Lets run software to benchmark how fast software is.... WoW...

Safari, fast but doesn't work with a LOT of stuff...
Firefox, quick but has it's own annoyances..
IE, Internet Exploiter, but works with about everything..

The list goes on and on and on..


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 13, 2009)

safari benches best but in a few tests i could SEE that it wasnt as smooth as other browsers


----------



## Bl4ck (Mar 13, 2009)

niko084 said:


> Indeed... Lets run software to benchmark how fast software is.... WoW...
> 
> Safari, fast but doesn't work with a LOT of stuff...
> Firefox, quick but has it's own annoyances..
> ...


From my perspective : 

Safari 3 & 4 speedy but has problems with some websites

Firefox 1,2,3, i never had any problems with this browser.

Opera ,had many crashes with Flash

Internet Explorer 6,7  , worst POS ever made ,  one window crashes every other module in browser, doesn't work good with CSS ,doesn't support CSS, isn't compatible with web standards, stupid activeX.  (version 8 Beta isn't any better then the 6,7 ver.)


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 13, 2009)

opera never crashes on me and i use the pre beta 10 version and watch flash videos and play flash games alot..........


----------



## Haytch (Mar 13, 2009)

This is another of many benchmarks.

Like all benchmarks, it depends on your hardware, software, temperatures, clocks, yourself and about 1 million other variables.

We can shrug this off because we are thick, or we can throw it into the collection of benchmarking tools and take it into consideration and nothing more, either option and the unmentioned 3rd is upto the individual, his/her past experiences and knowledge base.

When i get home, ill have to download it and look up some release notes, maybe try to find some paperwork on the engine and what it specifically is checking for.

Beta product benchmarks should be ignored from official results and only used as an expectation. Safari has always been more stable and faster for me, but it lacks what i need.  I must be one of the rare lucky ones that did his research into the Ie browser, made some minor modifications, constantly edits the hosts file and has never ever had a single crash or been unable to do anything like watch a movie or play a shitty flash game.  Obviously i use the browser several times per day etc etc.  As for its speed, well, everything can always be faster, but the difference is too minimal to risk using a less secure/stable/able browser.

Multicore utilizing browsers are a MUST. Im sure that it will only be a matter of time before streamprocessing gets involved and throws these futuremark scores out the window.


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 13, 2009)

need a browser to run on OpenCL(cuda/stream) hehe


----------



## Duffman (Mar 13, 2009)

It's an interesting test for browsers on your own machine.  Thanks to this thread, I've downloaded just about all of them lol.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 13, 2009)

965 Points with today's firefox minefield release.


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 14, 2009)

niko084 said:


> Indeed... Lets run software to benchmark how fast software is.... WoW...
> 
> Safari, fast but doesn't work with a LOT of stuff...
> Firefox, quick but has it's own annoyances..
> ...



what dosnt work on safari?

i havent found any pages it wont work with yet........and I have looked.......


----------



## Haytch (Mar 14, 2009)

CheetoLover said:


> what dosnt work on safari?
> 
> i havent found any pages it wont work with yet........and I have looked.......



Ummm, for starters, this futuremark peacemaker benchmark doest run on the new Safari, UNLESS you download Java.  Safari IS able to run anything and everything, if you make it do so, but that goes the same with all browsers, just need to be a smart cookie for the less competant browsers.

So when i ran my benchmarks, Safari FAILED in accordance to my means of standard benchmarking and futuremarks peacemaker.

As a standard browser, without plugins or updates or addons, browsers should run the benchmark.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 14, 2009)

CheetoLover said:


> what dosnt work on safari?
> 
> i havent found any pages it wont work with yet........and I have looked.......



Go ask a mac tech...... Safari has the most problems accessing webpages and properly displaying them, even with the proper plugins.

Firefox, try Acua's webpage, along others, I just remember that one well..

IE... Well it just sucks

There is a reason I have Firefox and Opera on my computers.


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 14, 2009)

Haytch said:


> Ummm, for starters, this futuremark peacemaker benchmark doest run on the new Safari, UNLESS you download Java.  Safari IS able to run anything and everything, if you make it do so, but that goes the same with all browsers, just need to be a smart cookie for the less competant browsers.
> 
> So when i ran my benchmarks, Safari FAILED in accordance to my means of standard benchmarking and futuremarks peacemaker.
> 
> As a standard browser, without plugins or updates or addons, browsers should run the benchmark.



in reality to use java u need to download java runtime enviroment installer, without it your system cant run anything java.

flash also requiers you install flashplayer.


so your complaint about having to download them is........silly.

for those intrested heres a link to the latist java build(been running it for months) 
http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/

and if you cant get some browsers to play flash stuff the trick to get that working is easy 

go to C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash run FlashUtil10b.exe and NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe

that should do the trick for you its worked for everybody else i know when safari,chrome,opera,ff and even IE stoped/wouldnt work with flash


----------



## CheetoLover (Mar 14, 2009)

niko084 said:


> Go ask a mac tech...... Safari has the most problems accessing webpages and properly displaying them, even with the proper plugins.
> 
> Firefox, try Acua's webpage, along others, I just remember that one well..
> 
> ...



when was the last time you tryed safari for windows?

my experiance is that 3 and 4 havent given me any problems other then the activeX requiered sites, and those are locked to IE if u dont want to hack other browers to make them less secure by enabling activeX in them.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 14, 2009)

Futuremark  find a new way ,  to  *cause new anxiety about upgrading* to users . 
And also found a new way to push users , to update the Java engine ... 
If i was Java corp .. i would pay good money just for that,  as advertising .  

The funny part .... at this financially hard moments ... 
nothing in the world can do that . *"cause new anxiety about upgrading"*
 


I run both IE and Firefox ..  
Its good to see Firefox doing three times faster the job . 

The highest possible score does not bother me ,  i do not use the Internet explorers for gaming ..   do you ?


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Mar 14, 2009)

went from 1362 to 1405 by upgrading chrome to 2.0. not a huge increase but I'll take what I can get.

Chrome just looks so much better and in my opinion has a better layout than Safari. I've use both and safari just has too much grey for me. Also chrome is now starting to support plugins so there really is no downside to it for me.


----------



## theeldest (Mar 14, 2009)

This is just sad. I did this at work and have the lowest score for this thread so far.

IE 6
Intel Pentium D 3.4GHz
2GB memory
Win XP SP2

Scored a 124!

OMG!


----------



## z1tu (Mar 14, 2009)

oh lol install firefox fast


----------



## theeldest (Mar 14, 2009)

Firefox gives me a 311, but doesn't work with much of the stuff I need here.


----------



## z1tu (Mar 14, 2009)

man that pc needs a format badly then


----------



## Imhoteps (Mar 15, 2009)

Sorry about no-screens (already deleted, lazy to run that test again).
My younger bro`s system: single core Celeron 2,8 GHz, GT 8600, RAM 2 Gb (puter`s old and weak, but he`s happy, pls don`t laugh).
===========================
XP Pro SP3/32:

Safari 4 beta - 549
Chrome 2.0.169 - 392
Opera 9.64 - 263
FF 3.0.7 - 148
IE7 - 75

=====================

Same system, OS - W7/32 b7048:

Safari 4 - 617
Chrome 1.0 - 455 (couldn`t install 2.0.169, dunno why)
Safari 3 - 379
Opera 9.64 - 272
FF 3.0.7 - 155
IE 8 beta - 142.

Final thoughts: any of IE is failure. FF`s disapointing me after yesterday. Safari 4 is quick, but crashed alot on W7 (well, it`s beta as well as W7). Chrome looks pretty quick and handy for now.


----------



## imperialreign (Mar 15, 2009)

meh . . . it doesn't recognize IE8b with my system.

don't mean squat to me, though - so what if Mozilla can display a page a few ms before IE . . . at least IE can display 95% of all web content without display errors


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 15, 2009)

nice but the test take long time


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Mar 15, 2009)

I 'overclocked' my browser and gained 41 marks. Oooh yeah! 

;P


----------



## mdm-adph (Mar 16, 2009)

imperialreign said:


> meh . . . it doesn't recognize IE8b with my system.
> 
> don't mean squat to me, though - so what if Mozilla can display a page a few ms before IE . . . at least IE can display 95% of all web content without display errors



That's funny -- in the past few years, I'm actually starting to see far more pages display properly with _Firefox_ that with Internet Explorer... 

And this benchmark doesn't have anything to do with how fast a page loads -- it's all about how fast Javascript and other page operations run, and how fast web applications run.  In these aspects, IE is far, far, far behind.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 16, 2009)

My Pentium I scored a 58...  fantastic.


----------



## SeanG (Mar 20, 2009)

Funny,I ran it and it keeps saying IE6 score and im running IE8?


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 15, 2009)

*My latest Peacekeeper benchmarks*

I guess Safari is the winner.


----------



## NapalmV5 (May 14, 2009)




----------



## sweeper (May 14, 2009)

592

Firefox 3.0.10


----------



## a_ump (May 14, 2009)

I broke a record!! lol nah they probly just don't update it often. Though i don't understand why my score on FF is higher than most everyone's in this thread, i saw bunch of 500-700.




2.3x the score with same tabs in safari


----------



## PEPE3D (May 29, 2009)

These are my latest score for Peacekeeper Browser benchmark.Safari-4904,Chrome-4744, Firefox1854, IE8-1236. Check this picture out.


----------

