Five Web Browsers: Which is the Fastest?

[mrd]

bloat / features

Kougar (Robert Tanner) on our staff is a devout Opera user as well and pretty much sums up the same reasons to explain why he uses it. With regards to being bloated though, people don't usually mean file size when saying that, but the number of features included. I want a browser that's lightweight, not one that includes an e-mail client, torrent client, et cetera.

Ah yes 'bloat'. It's really quite tragic that a single horrendously bad implementation (which Netscape truly was) has managed to allow people to describe features and functionality as "bloat".

You don't want to use any of the extras in Opera then they won't bother you. Don't want to use the Email, or IRC or torrent client or mouse gestures then don't.

Don't want to use Turbo or Link then don't. Don't want to use Unite or Widgets then hey, you'll not even notice them. Of course if you are running the browser in multiple locations then turn on Link, or if you're running it on your Netbook on a limited data allowance mobile data plan then switch on Turbo or if you just want a quick ad hoc IRC session then use the irc: / / address to quickly get your session going.

If the very presence of the ability to *do* things with the browser when they don't impact you unless you actually go to do them (umm) is a problem, then the problem is very much with the user and not the product.

 

[Unregistered]

Ah yes 'bloat'. It's really quite tragic that a single horrendously bad implementation (which Netscape truly was) has managed to allow people to describe features and functionality as "bloat".

You don't want to use any of the extras in Opera then they won't bother you. Don't want to use the Email, or IRC or torrent client or mouse gestures then don't.

Don't want to use Turbo or Link then don't. Don't want to use Unite or Widgets then hey, you'll not even notice them. Of course if you are running the browser in multiple locations then turn on Link, or if you're running it on your Netbook on a limited data allowance mobile data plan then switch on Turbo or if you just want a quick ad hoc IRC session then use the irc: / / address to quickly get your session going.

If the very presence of the ability to *do* things with the browser when they don't impact you unless you actually go to do them (umm) is a problem, then the problem is very much with the user and not the product.

It's not that easy as you make it sound. While yes, it's true that these extras (for mail, torrents, what else) are completely hidden from the browsing experience unless you specifically look for them, they are still there. Bundled. In an app, that's meant for browsing. It's probably a psychological thing, but it just makes the app feel "heavier", and it seems that's enough to make people choose Chrome over Opera.

A solution here would be to offer the extras as "optional extensions" or whatever, that the user would have to download and "install" in the browser before one could use them, they wouldn't just be shoveled in without any request from the user (a good analogue here is the way Apple provides apps to windows... And why everybody hates them for that).

[ot]pst: Techgage's "random question" is not at all that random [/ot]

 

[Rob Williams]

You can actually go install Arc90 Readability (where Apple acquired the functionality from in Safari) as a bookmarklet in most browsers including Opera if you wish.

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

That's VERY cool. I wasn't sure what was meant by "reader", but that's quite interesting.

If the very presence of the ability to *do* things with the browser when they don't impact you unless you actually go to do them (umm) is a problem, then the problem is very much with the user and not the product.

It could be a problem with the user, sure, but I couldn't agree more with the previous poster in that things should be optional, not a given. Personally, I use a Linux distribution that's for the most part DIY... I install the things I want, and ignore the things I don't. It's streamlined. That's why I like Chrome, because it feels about as barebones as it gets, and it suits me fine. I don't even have a single extension installed.

I am two-sided on this though, because on one hand, I do think it's foolish to care if a feature is there, if I'm not going to use it, but on the other, I -love- modularity, and don't like to be given big features that I'm never going to use.

[ot]pst: Techgage's "random question" is not at all that random [/ot]

Ouch! That's something I'm going to look into soon, since spam doesn't seem to be a major risk to this particular forum. I think it used to be random, but a couple of our questions were a little more complicated than we meant them to be, so we changed it a bit.

 

[mrd]

It's not that easy as you make it sound. While yes, it's true that these extras (for mail, torrents, what else) are completely hidden from the browsing experience unless you specifically look for them, they are still there. Bundled. In an app, that's meant for browsing. It's probably a psychological thing, but it just makes the app feel "heavier", and it seems that's enough to make people choose Chrome over Opera. ]

Yep, exactly; a psychological thing it is and why I said a "problem with the user".

It's a fallacious perception or... it's all in your (the user's) mind because the features are not there unless you wish to configure and use them. If you didn't know there was the possibility of them then you'd never form that opinion using the product.

There's certainly no file size bloat as noted earlier and looking at the performance you can see there is no system usage bloat.

Anyway though, it's good to see IE finally come to the party and coming to the party with a (relative) bang at that, and also Firefox picking up their game.

 

[rfmx49]

Disclaimer: Opera Fan

It's not that easy as you make it sound. While yes, it's true that these extras (for mail, torrents, what else) are completely hidden from the browsing experience unless you specifically look for them, they are still there. Bundled. In an app, that's meant for browsing. It's probably a psychological thing, but it just makes the app feel "heavier", and it seems that's enough to make people choose Chrome over Opera.

... on one hand, I do think it's foolish to care if a feature is there, if I'm not going to use it, but on the other, I -love- modularity, and don't like to be given big features that I'm never going to use.

A new car comes with a radio you don't use it all the time but your thankful the car company put it there when you want to use it right? Your car may have come with a standard sun roof you may not think it does much(I know mine doesnt seem to do much) but your happy its there right? You new computer has a 2Tb drive in it at most you only store at most 50% of that but the extra Tb isn't hurting you and it is there if you needed.

[sarcasm]Ugh my new Ubuntu 10.04 install comes with too many fonts they are not taking up much space at all but god it makes Ubuntu so heavy, bolat! you only need at most 4 fonts!! This is just like my dam Nissan that came with a dam radio i use only once in ten trips and god AM radio wtf is the point, and the usless sunroof! Dam bloat![/sarcasm]

All I'm saying is why be afraid of all these powerful standard features in Opera when you can use them as you wish, and they don't hinder your performance.

Even with all of Opera's "bloat" it still beats the other top 5 browsers. I would like to see a speed test of Opera vs. Firefox but with ff installed with all the extensions needed to make it comparable to the features of a standard Opera install.

As an other Opera user pointed out yes you may not use these features all the time but you do use them the odd time and it doesn't disrupt your experience. For instance.

I have a uTorrent web ui running on my main pc for torrenting, but sometimes i want to download directly to my laptop with out having to open up uTorrent on the laptop so I use Opera's built in torrent downloader, it may not be full featured but it gets the job done.

Edit: Some more bloat examples for ya
Ugh my microwave has a defrost mode i defrost my food with out the microwave Bloat!
Arrgh dam coffee maker with a timer that I don't us although it doesn't change the taste of my coffee it is still such bloat why cant they make my microwave and coffee maker modular so I can remove these pointless useless features that I may only use once a week.

 

[Rob Williams]

Your "bloat" comparisons are a little off the mark. We're talking about software, not an object that consists of real materials. You can't simply go to your garage and click a button to install or uninstall a sunroof in your car, but you can click a button to enable or disable a feature in a piece of software.

Regardless, the problem here isn't "bloat". It's that this "bloat" is a given. People who use Google Chrome tend to use it because it's about as minimal as it gets, and also because it happens to be fast. It's up to the users themselves to install additional features via extensions if they want them. Then there's Opera, which includes things that <em>most people</em> are not going to use. It's not difficult to see why Chrome looks a bit more appealing.

All browsers will include some form of bloat, but I think the difference with Opera is that this bloat doesn't just consist of minor features, but rather features that are akin to stand-alone applications. If people use Thunderbird and uTorrent, it's not so strange to imagine that they wouldn't want Opera Mail and Opera Torrent installed. Most people download a Web browser to browse the Web... not to replace other apps on their PC. Unless it's another browser.

Does all this mean that I think Opera's in the wrong? Not at all. It's free to do whatever it likes. Some people like the all-in-one aspect of things... but I don't.

I feel dumb for arguing about this regardless, because the "bloat" isn't even a problem to me. I'd prefer to have the option to slim the browser down, but the fact that the "bloat" is there isn't what's keeping me from using it, and if it did, that'd be ridiculous. I don't have interest in using Opera because I don't see a compelling reason to. Then there's the fact that I just don't care for the company. It spear-headed the process of coercing the EU to force Microsoft to do that stupid browser roulette after the install. I am wholly confident that Microsoft was in the right on that one (note: Apple didn't suffer the same fate, despite the fact that it does the same thing).

But that pettiness aside, Chrome is almost just as fast, and is minimal, which I like. So what is it that Opera offers that would appeal to someone like me? I keep hearing that Opera is the power users' browser, but I don't see where it dominates the competition in that regard.

 

[Unregistered]

Microsoft has a long history of abusing it's monopoly .
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2003/02/14/

Google has a huge monopoly as well personally I'm not very happy with their street view cars roaming around spying on wifi networks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/0...e_collecting_payload_data_from_wifi_networks/
But that doesn't stop me being a big fan of Google search & their translate button is a fantastic addition to my Opera toolbar.
Opera may only have around 2% of the global desktop market but it's a small Norwegian company & it's a very big market 1,966,514,816 users.
Its not doing badly on Mobiles either
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200908-201008

 

[Unregistered]

Love the readability button from Apple works great with Opera.
regarding the Eu ballot it's seems to have mobilized MS into developing IE9 & finally starting to pay some attention to web standards.

 

[rfmx49]

Your "bloat" comparisons are a little off the mark. We're talking about software, not an object that consists of real materials. You can't simply go to your garage and click a button to install or uninstall a sunroof in your car, but you can click a button to enable or disable a feature in a piece of software.

Regardless, the problem here isn't "bloat". It's that this "bloat" is a given. People who use Google Chrome tend to use it because it's about as minimal as it gets, and also because it happens to be fast. It's up to the users themselves to install additional features via extensions if they want them. Then there's Opera, which includes things that <em>most people</em> are not going to use. It's not difficult to see why Chrome looks a bit more appealing.

All browsers will include some form of bloat, but I think the difference with Opera is that this bloat doesn't just consist of minor features, but rather features that are akin to stand-alone applications. If people use Thunderbird and uTorrent, it's not so strange to imagine that they wouldn't want Opera Mail and Opera Torrent installed. Most people download a Web browser to browse the Web... not to replace other apps on their PC. Unless it's another browser.

Does all this mean that I think Opera's in the wrong? Not at all. It's free to do whatever it likes. Some people like the all-in-one aspect of things... but I don't.

Understood, i guess that comes down to personal preference I like having that immediate support to open my torrents check my mail while switching to a different tab, reading my rss feeds and seeing them come in as I browse, knowing that when i install Opera on a new computer I don't have to sit there customizing it how i have had it setup normally using Opera link. I like all my features there on demand not having to install a new application or go hunting for an extension, but yes that could just be personal preference.

...Then there's the fact that I just don't care for the company. It spear-headed the process of coercing the EU to force Microsoft to do that stupid browser roulette after the install. I am wholly confident that Microsoft was in the right on that one (note: Apple didn't suffer the same fate, despite the fact that it does the same thing).

So Opera was wrong to show less-tech-savy people that there are other browsers out there, and give them a more featureful, personal, secure online experience? Most people don't know the difference between Internet Explorer, Chrome, fire fox, Opera, Google Search, Yahoo Search, just like Googles whats a browser.. So MIcrosoft was in the right for providing their users with a insecure non-standard compliant featureless browser, and Opera was wrong for spear-heading a campaign to change that and promote not only their selves but also their competitors?

Regarding Apple(disclaimer:I despise apple); they have not suffered the same fate because they do not hold the a monopoly from this graph Apple only holds 6.13% of OS shares including their mobiles, a fraction of the 91% MS has. With that power Microsoft if not under the watch could destroy a company.

How I see it, lets say Ford has 90% of the market of vehicles they sell their own tires on all their vehicles but this is hurting other tire manufactures, so a ballot comes out and when you buy your new Ford now you are given the choice, at no extra cost you choose what type of tire you would like. With out this the smaller tire manufactures will not be profitable a fail and disappear. Smaller tire manufactures disappear and all new ford customers are left with a 2nd rate tire with out the bailout. Maybe latter down the roa Ford makes new rims that only their tires fit on are they in the wrong?

.But that pettiness aside, Chrome is almost just as fast, and is minimal, which I like. So what is it that Opera offers that would appeal to someone like me? I keep hearing that Opera is the power users' browser, but I don't see where it dominates the competition in that regard.

If simplicity is what you want continue to use Chrome, I also have Chrome installed only because I don't like(hate) fire fox, and Google does not treat Opera well when using their services. But I will keep to my full-featured Internet-suite thats just as fast or faster than the rest Opera.

 

[madstork91]

It is important to remember that google, and other W3c proponents have been stating for some time now that they will dropping support for older browsers.

All the while, google sites have been showing chrome as the browser to download. (with others on sites like youtube)

I think chrome will have more than enough in numbers soon enough to consider it the major shareholder in browser choice. If not among average users, then at least among the crowd on sites like this.

But what do I know? I seem to be a late adopter, and I only use chrome at work...
This message was written from home on FF

 

[orthancstone]

Not to fan the flames, but if you want to discuss the annoyance of bloat then go straight to the source: Microsoft.

Just look at the fact that MS finally caved into user demands and made Windows Live software (including the email client, the former Outlook Express) a downloadable option now instead of a standard install with the OS.

Yes, the footprint of such things are minuscule at the end of the day when you have a 1TB+ drive. But some of us still don't want the stuff installed in the first place because regardless of MB footprint, it still presents unwanted garbage (and in some cases, hooks into the software that do present undesirable performance hits).

 

[Rob Williams]

regarding the Eu ballot it's seems to have mobilized MS into developing IE9 & finally starting to pay some attention to web standards.

If there's any good to come from that debacle, it's that right there.

Understood, i guess that comes down to personal preference I like having that immediate support to open my torrents check my mail while switching to a different tab, reading my rss feeds and seeing them come in as I browse, knowing that when i install Opera on a new computer I don't have to sit there customizing it how i have had it setup normally using Opera link. I like all my features there on demand not having to install a new application or go hunting for an extension, but yes that could just be personal preference.

You and I are quite different, because you don't enjoy the modularity idea, but I do. I like to take a piece of software and build it from the ground up, but I can completely understand why some people wouldn't. As mentioned before, I use a DIY Linux, which starts me off with a base that I build onto. Once you are immersed in that level of modularity, it's kind of hard to look back.

You are clearly the ideal Opera user, because you do take advantage of all its features. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Opera users that also take advantage of the e-mail and/or torrent client (are there other major features like this included, or just e-mail and torrent?).

So Opera was wrong to show less-tech-savy people that there are other browsers out there, and give them a more featureful, personal, secure online experience? Most people don't know the difference between Internet Explorer, Chrome, fire fox, Opera, Google Search, Yahoo Search, just like Googles whats a browser..

Who cares if people don't know the difference? It shouldn't be up to Microsoft to tell them. I am not sure if the EU had noticed, but it's called "Microsoft Windows", and as such, Microsoft should have the right to do whatever it wants with its OS. People are not forced to buy it, after all. Nothing stops these technically inept people from doing their own research, and monopoly or not, it's not as though a browser is a be-all-end-all kind of situation. People weren't literally hurting because they didn't know other options existed.

Do you go into a Ford dealer and see Toyota pamplets? No, and it's absurd to even picture the idea. Tires I might be able to understand, but the full product?

And where does it end? Will we see Microsoft be forced to show Foobar, Winamp, VLC and MPlayer options the first time someone opens up Media Player? To me, it seems absolutely ridiculous that any company would be forced to promote its competition, and the only reason Opera made such a fuss was to get increased publicity. I am sure that their legal fees were minor compared to robust worldwide ad campaigns.

Just look at the fact that MS finally caved into user demands and made Windows Live software (including the email client, the former Outlook Express) a downloadable option now instead of a standard install with the OS.

As far as I'm concerned, it's hard to consider things like that to be bloat when you consider everything else that comes bundled with the OS. But regardless, I still think those applications are insanely bloated once installed, and I refuse to have them on my PC. When you install Live Messenger, you don't only get an overdone IM client, but there are like three services running in the background at all times. That drives me up the wall. iTunes is another major culprit here.

 

[Unregistered]

I may suggest a little reading on how Peacekeeper actually works. In essence, it mostly tests JS functions and some fancy rendering. Not sure what the current state of Chrome is, but during the beta of 6.0 it failed to process collisions in the bouncing-balls test. Most of the heavy-lifting falls under the "complex graphics" score, which must be manually factored into the combined score (Futuremark omits Complex Graphics from the overall result because IE8 and earlier do not support canvas functions).

I will freely confess that I am an Opera-only user, but I do test most browsers on a regular basis, as it directly relates to my line of work. My forum name is Cutting Spoon.

The perception of bloat is a strange thing. New versions feel lighter because all of the fancy options are hidden, creating a smooth and simple UI similar to the Chrome feel. Torrent download support is nearly transparent, files show up normally in the Downloads tab. IRC kicks in when you click an irc:// link, answer a couple questions and you'll never have to set anything again. If you ever click "Send Link by Mail", you will be asked a few one-time questions. So the interface tries desperately to make life easier while staying out of your way as much as possible, reducing the "confusion" and "clutter" that new users may have noticed in older versions.

I use it because I can run it on everything since Win98, I can have 100+ tabs open on my netbook, and I can seamlessly access bookmarks and notes from within a temporary autonomous zone (liveCD or similar environment). For added benefit, 10.70 will finally synchronize my content-blocker settings! It's great!

Oh, and it doesn't choke when you have FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND messages in the mail database. (one of my newsgroup subscriptions just crossed 200K posts, tell Outlook to try managing that)

 

[Static]

Lynx FTW!!!

Meh, the ultimate browser is Lynx! No ads, ultimate speed, least bloatware, a size that is nearly invisible, and the least obstructive interface in the universe!!! It even supports FTP!!! I'm going surfing the web the old-fashoined way

--Written from Lynx, the best browser ever.

P.S. How do you manage to allow anonymous posters? I'd think that it's really a huge risk.
P.P.S. w3m is awesome too.

 

[Unregistered]

I'd be curious to know the percentage of Opera users that also take advantage of the e-mail and/or torrent client (are there other major features like this included, or just e-mail and torrent?).

In addition to e-mail and torrents, Opera has a feed reader, (it's sort-of embedded in the mail client) IRC client, and a developer tools app called Dragonfly which is pretty similar to Firebug. There's also Turbo which uses a proxy to compress pages and speed up slow connections, and Opera Link for data synchronization (doesn't sync passwords or mail/feeds though). Unite is sort of a server inside the browser and lets you host web apps to share things with other people, (who don't have to be using Opera) though it can be used for other things like a user JavaScript manager. Widgets let you run web code as desktop applications. There's user JavaScript, user styles, mouse gestures, and (Windows only I think) voice controls too.

Honestly, that's a lot of stuff&mdash;probably more than most people need or want, but most of it stays inactive and hidden until you use it. If all you do with your browser is surf the web, Opera doesn't really have much over Chrome though.

 

[Rob Williams]

So the interface tries desperately to make life easier while staying out of your way as much as possible, reducing the "confusion" and "clutter" that new users may have noticed in older versions.

That's good to know, and I think that's how it should be. And thanks for the heads-up on the Peacekeeper test, I'm going to have to look into it more. The main reason I like it is because it actually involves the GPU in a real way, while the other tests I've seen do not.

Oh, and it doesn't choke when you have FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND messages in the mail database. (one of my newsgroup subscriptions just crossed 200K posts, tell Outlook to try managing that)

Geez, that's a LOT of e-mail. I thought my 30,000 was bordering on "too much".

Meh, the ultimate browser is Lynx! No ads, ultimate speed, least bloatware, a size that is nearly invisible, and the least obstructive interface in the universe!!! It even supports FTP!!! I'm going surfing the web the old-fashoined way

Haha, I do use Lynx from time to time, but I find elinks to be more useful in some cases because it supports Javascript. As for anon posters, it's never become a major problem for us. We can see via IP address if someone is up to no good.

In addition to e-mail and torrents, Opera has a feed reader, (it's sort-of embedded in the mail client) IRC client, and a developer tools app called Dragonfly which is pretty similar to Firebug.

Feed readers to me are a good thing to have integrated with a browser, as long as it's done well. RSS feeds always tie in with a browser in some way regardless, so to have it integrated can only be a good thing. I personally use Google Reader, which isnt far different... it's "built in" to a degree (via the website). I can also appreciate the inclusion of developer tools, again if they are done right. Not too thrilled about what Google Chrome includes. It's clunky and hard to follow.

Thanks for the mentions of all the features, appreciated! Will check them out for myself sometime soon.

 

[Unregistered]

(Cutting Spoon Again)

Even the graphic parts of Peacekeeper are mostly CPU-based in the average browser. However some programs will show a huge speed increase if/when they can translate canvas and svg elements via the graphics card. Differences in the subscores are also enlightening; Chrome's "data" numbers are high, but it seems to not process part of each operation. Opera's "text parsing" is super fast, perhaps explaining why it has a live filter in most panels. (reduces visible bookmarks, emails, etc as you type in the box)

Other things you can try are "GUIMark II" and Microsoft's TestDrive demos. Many things on "ChromeExperiments" work in other browsers, and some WOULD if they were written differently. Especially TestDrive and ChromeExperiments can show the benefit of hardware acceleration, try them out.

500K is a HELL of a lot of messages, but in fairness it also includes newsgroup posts and RSS feeds. Currently all such items are organized in one panel, but that (Mail) panel is being redesigned for 10.70; sorting will be improved, and the panel will finally be activated by RSS subscriptions.

Unite is kind've a curiosity, most don't use it and the rest "set-and-forget". However a member with the handle "lucideer" has an app named "widgetise" (http://unite.opera.com/application/652/) which can put websites on your desktop in a fashion similar to Chrome's tear-off tabs.

 

[Ven]

Fan of Opera here. I am using Opera since ti becomes free, I don't remember how much year are that.

I am web developer and I need to use all browsers for testing, so I have some experience with all of them. All the years before Chrome, Opera was just fastest. I remember at the beginning of the "performance war" I saw tests for Opera 9 and I was really surprised from the fact that it had slower js engine that FF. I couldn't believe, because Opera just felt much faster. Its not only JS, its the whole experience. FF is very expendable, but this has a price. For me it just feels times slower than Opera till this day. I haven't tried FF 4, but based on my experience I doubt that it will change this picture.

For my job FF has one killer feature (extension), that no one else is even closer, and its called Firebug. This is extension for web development. Opera, Chrome, IE has its own "thing" but they are all crap. The only usable thing is Firebug, and all my development is in FF. If Opera makes good dev tools (not that dragon that CANNOT fly), I will stop using FF for that, but as with FF 4, based on my experience I doubt this will happen soon.

And about Chrome... yes its fast. Which is faster Opera or Chrome at the moment I don't know, because they are constantly improving their performance. One build is Opera, next is Chrome, then Opera and so on. At the moment difference is insignificant. The first time I saw Chrome I said to myself wtf?... this thing is bare and bones. Obviously, I didn't liked. Its like notepad - you can type text inside and.... that's all. And compared to that Opera is like Word. You can type text and make "document" from that. The difference here is that Word is not as fast/faster than Notepad

In Opera at daily basis I am using its mail client, rss reader, its synchronization. Besides that, as was noted already, I have rare occasions when I need irc, bittorent client and for sharing purposes Opera Unite. Besides that Opera looks great and have many little features like undo, that just makes my life easier. Opera is great innovator. Many of other browser features are invented or first introduced in Opera, like mouse gestures, tabs, speed dial and so on. Using Opera I have greatest probability to have those features first. (As I said mouse gestures, few years back, I was soooo enthusiastic about that, that I was constantly looking for good program to do mouse gestures on my whole windows, not just in Opera. At one moment I found StrokeIt and this is one of most usable software. I have mouse gestures everywhere and I am disabled internal gestures support in Opera. If you are on win, try it, its life changer )

So, that is why I am using Opera and cannot be replaced by FF nor Chrome (I will not mention IE... I will get banned for my words The only reason more (regular) people to use Chrome than Opera in theirs current versions is because Google can afford to advertise its browser on youtube, or google.com or whatever.

 

[madstork91]

Im writing this one from chrome... ive made the transitions, and I prefer it for general browsing.

FF was bugging the fuck out every day.

 

[Unregistered]

PEACEKEEPER not reliable ?

I have been playing many many hours with Peacekeeper, using different PC, different browsers, not only looking at the total score but individuals, and I am afraid to have to say it is not a reliable benchmark.
While the overall score is more or less ok at 5%, the individual scores can vary a lot.
Notably Rendering is significantly varying, and recently with lastest Chrome DOM & Text are just moving from run to run up to 20% variations.

It sounds like that by opposition to Mozilla's benchmark (Dromaeo & Kraken) the benchmark is not pre-loaded, but loaded along the course, which from browsers to browsers just result in different behaviour.

While being from Mozilla those benchmark give extremely stable results.