Benchmarking Firefox 83 Nightly With "Warp" Against Google Chrome On Linux

[Chaython]

I tested firefox dev (w/ ublock) vs brave nightly and chromium edge (w/ublock) in windows.
Firefox was 5% faster.
Brave was 1% faster than edge.
In jet stream 2 and spedometer

Why firefox dev? It's my favorite branch.
Why Brave nightly? The other editions didn't have custom Adblocking rules
Why Chromium Edge Stable? Comes bundled with windows, still necessary for HD DRM content [Netflix], also can't currently uninstall it?
Why Ublock? Brave has a built in adblock and c'mon man, you know Ublock is necessary!

[ferry]

browser can't lock up os, it needs os' help for that. my os isn't locked up by google earth in chromium
which should give you a hint it's not chromium's problem

In a perfect world this wouldn't happen. But in the real world there are bugs, in this case (and yes it was probably fixed a year ago or so) in the video driver I guess. And firefox didn't trigger that.

In other cases chromium just locks up my laptop (with 4GB ram only) when there are too many tabs open. FF doesn't do that.

[pal666]

How bad is your web site compatibility compared to (Google) chromium locking up the OS when using Google Earth?

browser can't lock up os, it needs os' help for that. my os isn't locked up by google earth in chromium

The former can be solved by firing up Chromium, the latter by a hard reset

which should give you a hint it's not chromium's problem

[xnor]

Mozilla leadership made lots of serious mistakes over the past twelve years, but blaming the browser's problems on their diversity programs is like claiming the Titanic sank because it had too many gay bartenders.

"Diversity programs" is just a symptom..

But the other benchmarks - Ares, Speedometer, MotionMark - don't measure those things either. It seems to me that "time to full page load", imperfect as that may be, is more useful than "runs a set of Javascript and DOM manipulations in a combination totally unrelated to sites human beings actually visit in a browser."

That's fallacious.
In my second point I wanted to explain this. All of these tested "features" are used in real-world websites, just less extensively. But finishing even the most simple tasks faster adds up .. to overall lower resource usage.
Yeah, I can throw 16 cores and plenty of gigs of memory at a website to render it faster, but that is actually the problem, because these resources are simply not there on weaker systems, or are taken from other processes, result in more heat, shorter battery life etc.

Back to your point: yeah, it doesn't measure responsiveness EITHER ... but that is exactly what you complained about with synthetic benchmarks. So you CANNOT judge responsiveness given EITHER benchmark.
I will make this point once more, a bit more concrete this time: a browser that takes 350ms to load a website in its entirety can feel a lot more responsive than another browser that takes only 200ms. How? Because the first browser might display most of the website after 50ms and let the user interact with it while the second one might now show anything for 200ms.

[xnor]

Are you using Chrome?

No, when I tried to post the rest of my post I was using Firefox.

[BesiegedAce]

(The ramblings of a madman)

I think you're on the wrong forum. Seek help, your loved ones are worried about you.

...There is no big anti FOSS conspiracy here...

I agree with what you've said. To add in my two cents, there's only so many users that can be "bought" or whatever. Google simply had a better (as in, more appealing) product and advertised it much more. The average user gives 0 shits about privacy. If all the news, the Snowden and other leaks, all the privacy scandals, etc, failed to make the majority of users care at all about privacy, what's Mozilla going to do that will magically convince them? Mozilla should've done nothing but 1. work on the browser quality (speed, stability) with a secondary focus on (browser related) new features, and 2. focused on advertising it in a similar vein to how Google did with Chrome. Mozilla tried acting like Google, doing a thousand things unrelated to their main source of income, without the sheer resources Google has. It doesn't help that Google's apparently making their websites break on Firefox (I've heard about this before but I'm not sure about the current situation) and furthering the Blink/Chrom(ium) monoculture.

As a side, I mentioned this elsewhere, but I was disappointed when Microsoft announced they were switching to a chromium base, and away from their homegrown EdgeHTML architecture. Not out of any particular love for Microsoft, but simply that MS, with its own sizable pool of resources, could've chipped away at Google's marketshare with enough time. I hope at least that EdgeHTML gets open sourced, if only for historical/archival purposes.

This has been beat to death, but to be clear: Mozilla Foundation had, until the layoffs, 1,000 employees and their "Outreachy" diversity initiative covered 20 interns for six months per year. Since it's a public non-profit their demographics are public: 75% male, 75% white, and the percentage of men and whites in management is even higher. I don't think they publish "trans" demographics, but their percentage of employees in 2019 that identified as neither men nor women was 0.2%.

Mozilla leadership made lots of serious mistakes over the past twelve years, but blaming the browser's problems on their diversity programs is like claiming the Titanic sank because it had too many gay bartenders.

Thank you for saying this. While I have some skepticism about the various initiatives popping up (nothing against diversity in of itself), I am increasingly annoyed by the amount of reactionary rhetoric that people are saying. Its one thing to be skeptical about diversity initiatives, it's another to be homophobic/transphobic. It's frankly disgusting and only serves to makes anyone who is simply skeptical look bad by association.

[Michael_S]

This has been beat to death, but to be clear: Mozilla Foundation had, until the layoffs, 1,000 employees and their "Outreachy" diversity initiative covered 20 interns for six months per year. Since it's a public non-profit their demographics are public: 75% male, 75% white, and the percentage of men and whites in management is even higher. I don't think they publish "trans" demographics, but their percentage of employees in 2019 that identified as neither men nor women was 0.2%.

Mozilla leadership made lots of serious mistakes over the past twelve years, but blaming the browser's problems on their diversity programs is like claiming the Titanic sank because it had too many gay bartenders.

But that is simply not true. First of all, what is really measured here? Is it the time to load a page 100%? Then this tells you nothing about user experience.
Total page load time could be 200% and yet the browser could feel way more responsive, could start rendering much earlier, etc.

But the other benchmarks - Ares, Speedometer, MotionMark - don't measure those things either. It seems to me that "time to full page load", imperfect as that may be, is more useful than "runs a set of Javascript and DOM manipulations in a combination totally unrelated to sites human beings actually visit in a browser."

[elatllat]

Both Firefox and Chromium are buggy, glad I have 2 FOSS options... links -g is sometimes a light option but so much of the web is needlessly incompatible and bloated.

[AmericanLocomotive]

The page to look at is the bottom half of https://arewefastyet.com, which benchmarks the page load times of popular websites using common settings (that is, a Facebook home page for someone with hundreds of connections, an Amazon page for someone with an extensive purchase history, a Twitter page for someone that follows and is followed by many other accounts, a Google Doc with a lot of content, and so forth). Benchmark information here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/TestEnginee...or-tp6-1_to_10

On those benchmarks, Firefox stable is as fast or faster than Chrome on: Amazon, Apple, Ebay, Facebook, Fandom, Google (!), GMail (!), Google Slides (!), Google Docs (!), Imgur, Instagram, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Paypal, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yahoo Mail, Youtube (!), and Yandex.

Chrome beats Firefox on IMDB, Bing, and most of the synthetic benchmarks.

All this tells you is that most of the synthetic benchmarks are useless for measuring real world user experience.

Mozilla has a lot of serious problems, starting with a 2.4 million dollar salary for the CEO of a non-profit that just laid off 250 staff. But Firefox performance isn't one of the problems.

I was going to say, I think a lot of these synthetic browser benchmarks don't really tell the story. A user is not going to notice a difference between a 250ms and a 300ms page load.

I have a pretty modest internet connection, and everything loads near instantly on FireFox. Granted I have a near TOTL CPU (Ryzen 3900X), but these days even many mobile CPUs match or exceed it in single threaded performance. Imgur, G-Mail, Google Slides, Sheets, Docs, Youtube load fast and quickly. I never sit there going "oh man, I wish this would render faster". It's basically near instant.

Firefox going to Chromium/Blink would be a disaster for the web, IMO. You'd basically be allowing a single company to completely shape and dictate how the web should look and work. It'd be as terrible when IE was the "defacto" browser. It'd take just one person to find a zero-day Chromium exploit and cripple everything.

[Mez']

> Get funded by Soros Open Society
> Ultra-liberal hotheads get appointed as managers and chiefs
> Tranny developers start pouring in
> Trannies push good developers away from project
> Project starts going to shit
> Even Soros' money is not enough
> Must fire trannies even
> Only remaining dudes are just pajeets in internship
> Tries to regain market by "going social" with ultra-liberal propaganda (usually asking to censor freedom of speech and pushing mainstream fakenews)
> Must fire even last bit of developers
> Make a release with SciFi nomenclature, only to find it slowed down shit even more

Is this how browsers die?

I don't like the way you envision Firefox's future.
But I really like the non political correctness. Especially how supposedly tolerant and democratic ultra-liberal tend to end up dictating their own single version of the truth and censoring freedom of speech when meeting opinions not fitting their narrow views.