3 ms·

I wish he'd include a margin of error, mean, and median in his graphs. Quotes like this make me very leery of the reported result: Since this is a stopwatch

I wish he'd include a margin of error, mean, and median in his graphs. Quotes like this make me very leery of the reported result: Since this is a stopwatch test, the 0.3 seconds longer it takes Opera to open eight tabs than it does five could very well be human error. Load times for Yahoo! fluctuate in Safari by a full 100% during the tests. Beside the Facebook variation on all browsers, this is the most significant aberration during the page load time tests. The load times for Facebook fluctuate the most out of the Web sites tested during our page load time testing. This was experienced across all benchmarked browsers.

Gatsky 17y ago
I agree, these tests are quite useless. In addition to the points above: 1. The huge variability in load times for various pages clearly depends much more on the page being loaded rather than the browser. 2. There is no discussion of what a meaningful test result might be. What does it mean if one browser is 10milliseconds faster than another in an artificial benchmark? 3. Some of the browsers couldn't successfully complete the benchmark, but were still included. 4. The overall winner is determined by the number of wins in each category. Internet explorer bombs on all the artificial bench marks, but loads real pages quite well. Because there are only 5 page load tests and 13 benchmarks, it loses badly. Honestly, which is more important?