Firefox 68 vs. Chrome 76 Linux Web Browser Performance Benchmarks

[Citan]

I guess my question is, why does browser performance even matter?

Pages render pretty much instantaneously these days regardless of browser even on pretty old hardware.

Any browser comparison should focus more on what is really important: privacy.

I have the sad responsability to inform you you live in Dreamland.

Between...
- websites that just **** on you by implementing all processes in poorly written Javascript (meaning using up resources on load and possibly passively).
- websites that are actually decently written but are really desktop-like apps in disguise (*cough* JIRA *cough*)
- websites that siphon your personal information along with your patience by putting myriads of sniffers and intrusive ads...
Many websites are actually taking perceptible time to load and run.
Unless you make your daily browsing "sequentially" (one website and one tab at a time), you really feel the difference.

One real-life example: I have two newspaper that I like to read online. I usually have an average of 40 tabs open in any situation ("to-do things", other news I just opened and started to read, some webapps I keep open for quick access etc) and browser is 100% smooth.
One of the newspaper, I can open as many tabs as I want, I'll feel no difference (once I opened no less than 80 tabs because I wanted to find an old news and had really no good keyword to find it ^^).
On the other, as soon as I open more than 10 news, browser starts to feel sluggish.
Why the difference? If I had to guess it would be that the first has been designed with as little ads as possible, no privacy disrespect, and with a big budget on development.
On the defense of the other, the latter is generalist, so obviously there is more content to present. Yet it doesn't explain that big of a difference.

That's the day I learned that in spite of being in 21th century, you still need to watch how you browse because there is still much difference depending on skills and goals behind a given website.

Besides that, all webapps like JIRA / Gitlab / Confluence / Collabora take time to load, but it's more excusable for them considering their essence. ^^

[Citan]

It literally is piracy. Prove me wrong.
I never said anything about online tracking. You can get ads without tracking. On the other hand, it's kinda pathetic if you're actually worried about your shopping data being collected to give you more relevant ads.

It is literally NOT.

Stop saying such offendingly wrong things plz.
Piracy is when you do something that goes against the terms of use on something protected by intellectual property (also, piracy has actually no legal meaning but that's irrelevant for topic).

Using an adblock could be considered constitutive of an intellectual property infringement (here is the proper term, my pleasure) IF, and ONLY IF...
- The Terms of Use were EXPLICITELY saying something along the lines of "The right of reading content of this website is subjet to your full acceptance of all advertising published on the site, as well as all cookies created by the site. Any attempt to circumvent either (by using third-party software or tampering with the code) will be considered a breach in contract"
- The Terms of Use were required to be EXPLICITELY accepted through a popup or similar on first visit of a user.

Oh, and besides that... While I personally follow the same philosophy as you (no adblock/cookieblock, I just avoid intrusive websites)...
- I know that there are many informations that are siphoned from me through cookies, and it's not "cool". I just don't mind enough (yet) to do something about it, but it's no less immoral and (now) illegal in several situations.
- Nothing prevent adblock users to whilelist a website, so when one really wants to respect the people behind a website, nothing prevents him to do so.

---> Adblocks are but a tool. What's important is the mindset (and avoiding FUD about legal obligations ^^).

[Danielsan]

I think that after you disable trackers, ads, and all the other javascript crap behind a modern website the difference between Chrome and Firefox is not humanly perceptible. Guggl is mainly responsible of all the javacrap that is messing the modern web-site the are mainly focused on making javascript faster because is one of the key of their revenue, last time I checked (here) all these javascript benchmark engines were most of them somehow related with Guggl hence those aren't really trustworthy, and I also consider that Guggl tricks its javascript engine to make it the better in these benchmars, we know the Guggl doest this things...

[DrYak]

You clearly don't know why these ads are made or how marketing works. Marketers are very well aware of the incredibly low click-through rates of ads. They know most people aren't paying close attention.

The concept I am trying to evoke is return on investment (ROI).

When marekeers invest into an ad campaign, they hope to get something out if it.

The more you ignore ads, the less effect they have (click-through, conversions, brand recognition), the less "worth it" they are, the less marketeers are going to invest money, which eventually will lead to less money to creators.

This is among others, already happening on youtube, as marketeers realise that they aren't getting as much as they would like out of it and are thus not interested in putting that much money into it, and eventually creators are getting less.

(I am not speaking about adpocalypse = demonetizations due to image/content. I am speaking about the reported lower amount of money per views earned now compared to earlier periods).

It 's part of the reasons why relying on ads isn't a viable long term solution.

[Danielsan]

The only one who is making money with online ads is Guggl...

[schmidtbag]

The concept I am trying to evoke is return on investment (ROI).

When marekeers invest into an ad campaign, they hope to get something out if it.

The more you ignore ads, the less effect they have (click-through, conversions, brand recognition), the less "worth it" they are, the less marketeers are going to invest money, which eventually will lead to less money to creators.

And they do get an ROI, just indirectly. Again, click-through is not what they (or most) are after. Like I said in my last post, they're aware the amount of people who click on ads is astonishingly low. Getting clicks is not their goal, otherwise, ads on TV, radio, billboards, etc wouldn't exist. This is also why you see content creators wearing logo'd apparel, or sponsorships at live events (where obviously, nobody is going to stop whatever they're at the event for just to look up a product/service).
The ones who base their ad success based on click rates have woefully misunderstood how and why ads are used.

It 's part of the reasons why relying on ads isn't a viable long term solution.

That's a different subject. I don't necessarily disagree, but whether they're a viable long-term solution or not, that doesn't make you righteous to evade them for your own personal convenience.