Slashdot Mirror
Firefox vs Chrome: Speed and Memory (laptopmag.com)
Mashable aleady reported Firefox Quantum performs better than Chrome on web applications (based on BrowserBench's JetStream tests), but that Chrome performed better on other benchmarks. Now Laptop Mag has run more tests, agreeing that Firefox performs beter on JetStream tests -- and on WebXPRT's six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workload tests.
Firefox Quantum was the winner here, with a score of 491 (from an average of five runs, with the highest and lowest results tossed out) to Chrome's 460 -- but that wasn't quite the whole story. Whereas Firefox performed noticeably better on the Organize Album and Explore DNA Sequencing workloads, Chrome proved more adept at Photo Enhancement and Local Notes, demonstrating that the two browsers have different strengths...
You might think that Octane 2.0, which started out as a Google Developers project, would favor Chrome -- and you'd be (slightly) right. This JavaScript benchmark runs 21 individual tests (over such functions as core language features, bit and math operations, strings and arrays, and more) and combines the results into a single score. Chrome's was 35,622 to Firefox's 35,148 -- a win, if only a minuscule one.
In a series RAM-usage tests, Chrome's average score showed it used "marginally" less memory, though the average can be misleading. "In two of our three tests, Firefox did finish leaner, but in no case did it live up to Mozilla's claim that Quantum consumes 'roughly 30 percent less RAM than Chrome,'" reports Laptop Mag.
Both browsers launched within 0.302 seconds, and the article concludes that "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
You might think that Octane 2.0, which started out as a Google Developers project, would favor Chrome -- and you'd be (slightly) right. This JavaScript benchmark runs 21 individual tests (over such functions as core language features, bit and math operations, strings and arrays, and more) and combines the results into a single score. Chrome's was 35,622 to Firefox's 35,148 -- a win, if only a minuscule one.
In a series RAM-usage tests, Chrome's average score showed it used "marginally" less memory, though the average can be misleading. "In two of our three tests, Firefox did finish leaner, but in no case did it live up to Mozilla's claim that Quantum consumes 'roughly 30 percent less RAM than Chrome,'" reports Laptop Mag.
Both browsers launched within 0.302 seconds, and the article concludes that "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
Exactly.
Brave, on the other hand, has NoScript-like functionality built into the core software and works out of the box, along with ad/tracker blocking and fingerprint protection.
It makes sense, as Brave is led by Eich, who was helping lead Mozilla when it was actually good.
I have been trying 57 for a day. To be fair, it seems pretty decent so let's give those poor Mozilla devs a break!
It only choked on the pdf from this article where cpu went nuts until I was done reading and closed the tab. Then, everything went back to normal. Still, it made it look bad.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
I had to learn to use uBlock and uMatrix to replace noscript and I am not sure I will go back to noscript now once they release a coming soon compatible version.
My other addons kept working or had a replacement version already available. ghostery, adblockplus, decentraleyes...
Overall, at first glance, I like it.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I would never read the NYT, but everything, and I mean EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE I have gone with Firefox 57 is noticeably faster than 56 or prior, under an older Linux machine. And that is with 2 addons. I have been very impressed.
Perhaps the Mac build has some issue on your machine? I don't know...
Try installing uBlock Origin. It will replace all of the following:
Adblock Origin
NoCoin
Google Analytics Opt-out
WebRTC Leak Prevent
Google Analytics Parameter Stripper
Tracking Token Stripper
Then try adding Disable WebGL. You should see better performance - for me at least Chromium is lighting fast.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC