Cyberfox 35 Review – A 64-Bit Version of Firefox

very good
key review info
application features
  • Based on the Mozilla Firefox source code for 64-bit Windows
  • (4 more, see all...)

Mozilla Firefox has yet to release an optimized edition of the famous web browser for 64-bit Windows. However, users can resort to browsers built by other developers that focus on this aspect.

Last year, we provided you with a comparison review between Firefox 20.0.1, Pale Moon 24.5, Waterfox 28 and Cyberfox 20.0.1 to see which one is better in terms of JavaScript performance, startup time and memory usage, and we came to the conclusion that 32-bit Firefox probably remains the best choice for 64-bit Windows.

New features and different ones from Firefox

Yesterday, Cyberfox received a major update that brought new features to the table, along with improvements regarding performance and security. For example, it implemented an option for closing all tab URLs with a single click. We're taking a look at it and redoing the previously described tests to find out if the app is getting closer to Firefox's level. This time we're only evaluating Cyberfox compared to Firefox.

In this new edition, it is possible to enable or disable the new-tab page, preload new-tab, search bar on new-tab, along with the thumbnail capturing on the new-tab page, specify the new-tab page, as well as deactivate the automatic loading of images and the Flash Player protection mode.

Cyberfox is a 64-bit edition of Firefox
Cyberfox is a 64-bit edition of Firefox

Other features of Cyberfox allow you to turn off various menu items, such as cleaning RAM cache, cloning tabs, copying the tab URL, accessing the about:config area, along with using the hello chat. You can also ask the tool to clear fast restart cache on browser restart, as well as easily send the current link via email by opening the right-click menu.

Features borrowed from Firefox

Due to the fact that the program uses the open-source code made by the Mozilla Firefox creators, the interface and most features are taken from Firefox, and they share the same structure. You can start a new private session in an incognito window, view browsing history, enter full screen mode, enhance the app's functionality with plugins, create bookmarks, use web developer tools, as well as sign in with an account to sync tabs, bookmarks, passwords and settings.

What's more, you can customize Cyberfox to suit your preferences, and thus, boost your productivity by handpicking the exact items to keep in the menu and toolbar while excluding the rest.

Evaluating Cyberfox's performance

We put Cyberfox 35 to the test against 32-bit Firefox 35 to evaluate JavaScript performance, startup time and memory usage. The testing machine was an Intel Core i5-3470 @ CPU 3.20GHz with 12GB RAM on Windows 8.1 Pro. Both browsers were left with their factory configuration.

We already mentioned this in Waterfox's review, but to clarify everything, we excluded Nightly (64-bit Firefox) from the test due to the instability of unofficial releases.

In order to test JavaScript performance, we used four popular benchmarking tools available online, namely Mozilla's Kraken, Google's Octane, Webkit's SunSpider and Futuremark's Peacekeeper. For the results interpretation, you should take into consideration that lower is better for Kraken and SunSpider, while higher is better for Octane and Peacekeeper.

Peacekeeper benchmark results for Cyberfox
Peacekeeper benchmark results for Cyberfox

In Kraken, Cyberfox was first with 1249.3ms, followed by Firefox with 1419.7ms. In Octane, Firefox was first with 23963, while Cyberfox was last with 21952. In SunSpider, Cyberfox was first with 201.8ms, followed by Firefox with 209.2ms. Lastly, in Peacekeeper, Cyberfox was first with 4193, while Firefox was second with 3718.

In conclusion, for the JavaScript performance test, the Cyberfox - Firefox score is 3-1. Make sure to check out the screenshots in the gallery below.

In the second phase of the test, we compared the web browsers in terms of startup time and memory usage. To be more realistic, we asked them to load 10 pages and 5 add-ons at startup in two modes: cold and warm startup. Cold startup means that a Windows restart is performed before launching a web browser instance, since it takes the PC a longer time to load all resources. On the other hand, warm startup is a basic launch that can be executed immediately after closing the browser, since the RAM is already cached after the initial startup.

The 10 links to load were the homepages of Feedly, YouTube, SoundCloud, Facebook, Twitter, iMDB, Reddit, eBay, Wikipedia and Softpedia, while the five add-ons were Adblock Plus, LastPass Password Manager, Tab Mix Plus, Video DownloadHelper and Thumbnail Zoom.

Three test cases were run for each startup mode for each browser. Relying on our own perception, we used a simple online stopwatch to determine the startup time, triggering it when clicking the browser executable file, and stopping it once all tabs were loaded.

As for the memory usage test, we used the about:addons-memory Firefox extension, applying it to the same loaded 10 web pages and 5 add-ons. To make it fair, the RAM usage of this extension was subtracted from the total memory of the web browser. However, since memory usage varies within a browser, we measured it a few seconds after startup only.

After three cold system startups, Cyberfox loaded everything in 25 seconds the first time, 25 afterwards, and 26 seconds the third time. In warm startup mode, it took 16 seconds in all three cases. RAM was used 49.2% / 27,07MB.

Firefox loaded all pages and add-ons in 24, 25 and 24 seconds in cold startup, and in 15, 13 and 14 seconds in warm startup. RAM was used 45.2% / 18.59MB.

All in all, we concluded that Firefox was slightly better than Cyberfox after warm startup mode, both are similar after cold startup mode, and Firefox is slightly better when it comes to RAM usage.


The Good

Cyberfox worked fine on 64-bit Windows 8.1 during our evaluation, without hanging, crashing or prompting error messages. It offers support for all Firefox extensions and 64-bit plugins, including Adobe Flash Player, Oracle Java and Microsoft Silverlight.

There's also a portable edition available, called Cyberfox Portable, if you want to skip the installer and be able to run the browser directly from a pen drive.

The Bad

There isn't a big difference between 64-bit Cyberfox and 32-bit Firefox in terms of performance.

The Truth

Once again, we expected better results from Cyberfox. You are welcomed to give it a shot, but we bet you'd rather stick with Firefox for the time being.

user interface 4
features 4
ease of use 4
pricing / value 5


final rating 4
Editor's review
very good
 
NEXT REVIEW: Directory Monitor

Cyberfox (14 Images)

Cyberfox is a 64-bit edition of FirefoxThe interface is the same as in FirefoxYou get access to the same features and toolsThese are some new features made just for CyberfoxKraken benchmark results for Cyberfox
+9more