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."
Not only is it all about speed, there is a suspiciously large number of articles here talking about how great 57 is. Every little positive feature of 57 gets its own story posted. I question the motive behind this. A couple stories back, I outed a Mozilla undercover employee shilling for them in the comments, wouldn't be surprised if it went further-- something is being done to get a whole bunch of positive coverage here, when that certainly doesn't seem to be the general consensus among users.
And I absolutely agree with the 'who the hell cares about speed' comment. Who cares if it's a little faster, the difference is barely noticable... on 56 I've never encountered a website that took more than 5 seconds to load (besides when it's just lag), reducing that to 2-3 seconds isn't worth crippling the browser. They broke a whole bunch of addons, with a huge number that won't be replaced because it requires developing entire new functionality with Mozilla, and another huge set that *can't* be replaced because it's functionality that WebExtensions will never allow. Browsers long ago reached "fast enough" status, where speed ceased to be the most important factor. Firefox is also "stable enough" too. Nothing they've done compensates for breaking XUL and once again reducing user options in their neverending quest to be Chrome.