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."
WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT SPEED?! It's not been about SPEED since... 2001? It's about all the KEYLOGGERS and SPYWARE and fucking BLOAT BULLSHIT that these assholes fill their shitty browsers with these days. They have ALL become useless. The latest Firefox is so bad that I finally went to try out Palemoon, but was so turned off by its bizarre, sketchy installer that I forgot about that again.
Sigh. There is not one browser that is usable these days.
Until an XUL compatibility layer is developed Firefox Quantum is useless, forcing people to use ESR or forks.
When will Noscript 10 be available for Firefox? Until that's released, Firefox is garbage. If developer builds allow legacy extensions to run , the Firefox developers were more than capable of doing so in official releases. Quite simply, the goal is to prevent users from running legacy extensions. In the process, security and functionality have been reduced for everyone.
How many more Mozilla spam stories are we going to get? It is almost like this is becoming the Mozilla news distro list.
It has been almost a week since release and even NoScript is not updated for compatibility yet. Mozilla has a year to plan this and the whole extension migration business is still hobbling along.
I moved my primary browser to Brave. Script control is natively enabled so no more waiting for outside developers. And Brave is faster than Firefox has ever been.
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.
and it doesn't spy on you. Perhaps Firefox's slogan should be - We are fast and do not spy on you.
Stop these paid benchmarks already. I'm not going to Chrome unless I am forced to.
Okay, so you dislike Chrome. So do I.
But Chromium is open source and has no proprietary Google code.
Most Russian trolling supports liberal views, not conservative ones. The Russian objective is to encourage the far right. The liberal trolling is designed to incite the far right with anger toward the left. Much of the Russian troll ads purchased on Facebook were supporting apparently liberal causes and were targeted at the right. Their goal is to motivate the far right by convincing them that their positions are under attack by liberals. The Russian trolls are doing this with liberal posts. When you see liberal posts, you should be suspicious that they are actually Russian trolling.
I wonder how these two compare with MS edge browser.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Right now you’re smug and condescending, but that isn’t going to last.
As you leave the workforce, and your wealth and health begin to dwindle, your political power will die.
Then will you be left in peace to enjoy your retirement? The fuck you will. Every single one of you will be executed in the most industrial and efficient manner. Your Mc mansions and SUV burnt to ash.
Then the ruling class that you've been protecting will be exposed so that it can be rooted out and exterminated.
Liberalism and everything you held dear will not only be crushed, but written out of the history books. There will be a new history written for the winners, and the young population unburdened by useless bible belt consumer retards will flourish like never before.
download statusbar, classic theme restorer, noscript. Without all the addons that made Firefox 3.0 great, speed is useless. Like a car without seats, or a bar without beer.
Uhh...maybe that's because the current upgrade wasn't related to JavaScript features? That's not a good test to test it with.
Ezekiel 23:20
Jeez I mean come on! They didn't want to test IE 6? The real reason is because there has not been a single browser made for the web since IE 6. Don't believe me? Well go to abovetopsecret or infowars forums and ask if the world is flat. Then you'll have your answer.
only fascist alt left and the unitary juche right believe in and use those other wannabe browsers. True AOL internet aficionados use internet explorer 6 and we explored every nook and cranny with IE6, and the more genius amongst us even staked claims on the Geocities territories where they could be safe from those "others", and enjoy their html blink tags and animated gifts in peace.
Bring back IE6! Make America Online Great Again!
I'm sure that Mozilla will be happy.
We're now just like Chrome!
Jeez, just like a 12-year-old wanting to be just like the most popular kid - it's sad.
Sorry, Mini-me ain't Dr. Evil. In fact, Mini-me is a joke...
Tell us which one is faster to remove all the ads, shutting up all the audio and video, blocking facebook , pinterest and twitter buttons, preventing fingerprinting and trackers, blocking webRTC and all 30 external javascript links that each page seems to 'need' these days and ... then we can talk.
Artificial benchmarks are irrelevant. All that matters is real world performance. And this is where FF, including FF 57, fails badly in my experience. Edge, Chrome, Vivaldi, Brave, Safari and Opera have all been much faster than FF 57 on the various computers I've tried them on.
Keep it evil-free.
It is specifically engineered around privacy and security by default. And it very fast.
Firefox Quantum sucks at video playback, and eats battery like nobody's business.
It's also a memory hog, for me it uses over 1 GB for four tabs.
People keep quoting low memory numbers but seem to be missing the forked processes.
I use both Firefox and Chrome on an older Mac. I got the Mac in 2009. I use Firefox for the New York Times website and have been using it for years. Performance was never a problem until I upgraded to Firefox Quantum. The performance sucks and it takes around 2 minutes 30 seconds to load the NYT homepage. Other sites, such as Slashdot, load fine. Any ideas?
perceived speed VS actual speed.
A lot of software uses neat tricks to give the illusion of higher speed. E.g. in iOS, when switching to another app, at the beginning, you would only see a screenshot, until the actual app would be loaded. But since you’d never choose where to tap that fast, it worked. Also, Windows used to load many of its essential services only after showing the desktop and task bar.
I wonder which tricks browsers already use and which could be added.
(I know that ye olde Opera used to seem a lot quicker because the rendered pages (including those in history) were cached, while Firefox would re-render pages far more often for no reason. E.g. when going back and forward.
then you're probably too dumb to use a browser in the first place. The 4 top browsers, Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer 11, and Edge, are all really fast-performing and feature-complete.
The real difference is in the set of functionality and privacy/security, and Firefox 57 beats the rest of them on that point. This is what you should be thinking about when you decide what browser to use.
So Firefox Quantum, what is next, Firefox Cherry? Firefox Dark? Firefox Quartz? Firefox Victory?
I will only upgrade if it gives my screen a cool blue glow... and I can mix in some Abraxo Cleaner and Turpentine for a big bang.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Thats all well and good, but when will Firefox start properly supporting large enterprise deployments and management?
- No inbuilt group policy support - management of browser is terrible when compared against IE, Edge and Chrome
- Terrible proxy support for major enterprise level proxies
- Easy deployment of certificates (ie being able to utilise the OS cert store)
Until Mozilla takes enterprise seriously, then enterprise won't take Firefox seriously. At my work place we have removed Firefox completely due to the above issues, and standardised between IE (for legacy sites) and Chrome.
Please use caution when reading the parent comment. It has apparently been posted by Mark Davis.
This past Thursday, when discussing Firefox 57, Mark Davis incorrectly claimed that Firefox "Contains no Googleisms and Google tracking". Of course, this bullshit claim of his was quickly shown to be wrong, with Firefox's very own privacy policy proving just how wrong his claim is.
After seeing such a blatantly incorrect claim like that associated with this "markdavis" account here at Slashdot, I can't bring myself to trust any other comment made using that account.
At this point, I have to assume that the opposite of what he is claiming is actually the truth. If he says that Firefox is "faster", then the only sensible thing to do is assume that it's actually slower. That matches what a lot of other people are saying about Firefox 57, not just here at Slashdot, but in various other discussion forums, too.
So please show caution when reading his comments. In my opinion, they can't be trusted, especially after what we witnessed last Thursday.
Which of those benchmarks measures browser performance after leaving a couple dozen tabs open for three weeks? Huh?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Installed it, browsed a few sites, and uninstalled. Went back to Chrome - no problems.
MS has no role in browser war. here we have a window for them.
Again: Who cares.
Even if and when Firefox is slower, it still to be preferred. The obvious reason is that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: Google's attempt at owning the internet.
That they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and as a result manage to play the abuse smoother does not make it less true.
People who use Chrome are either uninterested in matters of internet freedom, naive, or harmful.
The other day I saw an ad for Firefox 57.
On TV.
On a weekday.
On TBS.
During American Dad.
And the commercial barely communicated why people should switch to Firefox!
Prepare for bankruptcy.
You know how I judge that? It takes longer to do things. You know why that is? Because they broke my plugins and the best replacements I can find are clumsier and less streamlined.
Time will tell whether it _becomes_ faster than it was before, but it isn't faster now.
I dumped both Firefox and Chrome and now use Opera [url:http://www.opera.com] instead. Opera isn't the memory hog that Firefox is and doesn't crash/burn/get stupid as Chrome often does.
Opera has a very cool feature: highlight text and Opera displays Search and Copy boxes. This is a time saver if you copy/paste or search much.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Sure, it's nice that the Firefox devs keep working to improve speed, memory, and performance, but these are a lot more trivial than they were in the past.
What really makes or breaks the user's experience these days is the front-end stuff. Whenever the devs shuffle your buttons, move your tabs, change your menus, toggle your settings, and break your add-ons before replacements are available (all of which happens far too often in Firefox updates), there is nothing but frustration and anger. In that regard, FF57 is an abomination.
Which makes script management very simple and straight-forward with no add-ons needed.
FTFA: "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."
In other words, "Either one of these browsers is better than any turd Microsoft shovels out."
And not by a large margin: http://www.zdnet.com/article/j...
We'll make great pets
What is that LaptopMag.com source? Underneath the article I found scams in my language pointing to "interesting" articles "FROM THE WEB". It cointained even links to obvious cosmetics-selling scams posing as state-established Czech doctors' organization (Camera Medica Bohemica - "eská lékaská komora"). That is totally outlawed in my country!
Don't trust a source that takes money from scammers.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
I know it's pedantic and nerd-rage-y but I won't use Chrome because the lack of a menu bar is too distracting for me.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
My Mom has run stock Firefox for years, with auto-updates turned on. No add-ons or plugins. FF 57 auto-installed and was completely unusable, taking minutes to do anything. It is now shut down and Chrome installed in its place.
How do the two compare on availability and functionality of extensions in their latest versions?
Still, Firefox needs to get it's base of valuable plug-ins ported to Quantum.
Hate to say it, yet I value "Tab Groups" more than what Quantum offers. So I am sticking w/ Firefox v56.
C'mon, you Firefox developers and contributors, PLEASE get those valuable plug-ins/extensions ported up!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.