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."
You donâ(TM)t need to tell us youâ(TM)re using Safari. Somehow, we know. ;)
#DeleteFacebook
XUL wasn't multi-process compatible.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I think you better read the Firefox EULA...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
It is like IE around 2000. It does stuff behind your back. So, we can see it but you can't unless you look at it from a perspective outside the walled garden.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
> So by your logic...
There is no logic. Just trolling. It's AC, and completely off-topic, even the title. Might have been dropped here by a bot, or at best a drive-by cut-n-paste. There's no conversation here, poster is likely long gone. Not worth your time.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
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...
XUL was a bad design. It is that simple.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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
Until an XUL compatibility layer is developed Firefox Quantum is useless, forcing some tiny minority of users to whine about it and use ESR or forks.
Fixed it for you.
What product failure? Firefox 57 works. Mozilla has been telling everyone they'll be making this transition for over two years. NoScript wasn't released on time, even though it had plenty of time.
XUL is a great design that has given us top quality browser addons.
It only choked on the pdf from this article where cpu went nuts
So the real problem is using a browser to render PDFs. We're using browsers to do half-assed duplicate work while proper tools for the job already exist.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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
I'm afraid we're too late trying to turn back the clock. Videos on webpages are some of the worst kind of this problem, and they're been popular at least since Youtube started around 2005. At the time, I thought it was idiotic to watch videos on a tiny part of a webpage vs. full screen with a proper player, but I guess that's what people wanted. Or perhaps normal people are completely helpless with their own computers, so everything has to be ready-made for the browser. And the advertisers must love the fact of autoplaying video clips.
PDF readers have their own stigma, IMHO, with websites urging you to download the one official Acrobat Reader, as if no free/open readers existed. So I can understand how the in-browser reader may feel like a better choice -- it's often open source anyway. And there's some logic in having a document renderer in an application that already renders documents. Still, the near history of computing looks like one worse choice after another, with the better choices being phased away.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I just installed a completely fresh browser with an empty profile when FF57 came out, and all of what I wrote is true.
Eat the rich.