A Quick Benchmark Of Mozilla Firefox With WebRender Beta vs. Chrome

[mayankleoboy1]

1. Webrender is focused for Windows currently. Linux doesn't have much optimization.
2. A lot of these benchmarks test the WebGL and SVG (filters and blur) functionality. Webrender doesn't yet accelerate WebGL, or SVG. WebGL falls back to the slower back-end, when WR is enabled. SVG (filters and blur) falls back to CPU when WR is enabled.
And again, these two are the best case scenario on Windows. Linux is worse
3. WR should remain in beta for a few more cycles. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1386669 is the bug for enabling WR on release on a Win10+Nvidia gpu . It still had lots of bugs open. Mozilla doesnt even have a tracker bug for enabling WR on Linux. I am pretty sure android will get WR before Linux does
Mozilla needs more manpower to work on this. It is slightly odd that with work that fundamentally changes the way rendering happens in browsers, nobody from the larger companies like google, or hardware people from intel/amd/nvidia help much
Patches from the community are welcome1 ! https://github.com/servo/webrender

[shmerl]

I think in order to reduce the number of potential bugs, Mozilla should switch WebRender to Vulkan already now, instead of dragging it with OpenGL. Vulkan is a narrower area to work with, and driver bugs can be fixed quicker.

[TemplarGR]

Something is off with those benchmarks. But anyway, this is a work in progress and i am very hopeful for the end result. Keep in mind that webrender is not only about raw speed, but also about having higher framerates and smoothness of the experience. I believe in a few months all Linux users will be using Firefox!

[DanL]

Rust wastes more power than proper C++ (not with a million bounds checks) so it's causing global warming more.

You have just answered the question: What's worse than a Rust zealot?

[vadix]

You have just answered the question: What's worse than a Rust zealot?

He is very obviously baiting and everyone is just taking it, sometimes saying illogical things in response. This is not a serious poster. You don't need to respond to him.

[shmerl]

Say no to the Firefox browser that requires you to use pulseaudio.

No, thanks. PulseAudio works just fine and I don't need a mess that locks audio resources that other applications can't use in parallel. May be another mixing server replacement is better, but raw Alsa is not a solution.

[nanonyme]

No, thanks. PulseAudio works just fine and I don't need a mess that locks audio resources that other applications can't use in parallel. May be another mixing server replacement is better, but raw Alsa is not a solution.

As long as you don't use laptops, you might get away with hardware mixing assuming you buy a separate sound card

[molecule-eye]

Who cares? Likely not a difference anyone will notice in real usage. Also not surprising given the money google has to throw behind the development of Chrome. Would still rather the smaller, open source project that produces a very fine browser nonetheless.

[TemplarGR]

Say no to the Firefox browser that requires you to use pulseaudio. Chrome works with Alsa. Pulseaudio is buggy and uses a lot of CPU resources. The Poetterisation of GNU/Linux is bad and Firefox do just that.

The resident troll is at it again...

[xpue]

locks audio resources that other applications can't use in parallel

Multiple applications work in parallel and mix with just raw alsa, and without need for hardware mixing. Pulseaudio is not made or needed for that. What are you talking about?