Chrome 91 Benchmarks On Linux Showing Off Even Better Performance

[CochainComplex]

Impressive performance for the world's favorite private data slurper and ad slinger.

as long as firfox is not super super slow I will stick to firefox. I don't want chrome and/or all its reskins to grab my data.

[CochainComplex]

It was packed, man. It's transitioning into a Flatpak.

Then put some books into it too ...you know it needs it own libs.
...but wait flat..p ....this doesnt sound like a good ending for your cat

[Sonadow]

Personally I prefer Chromium/Chrome, Stadia being one of the reasons.

That being said:
- hardware video decoding under Linux is disabled by default
- enabling it works in general, at least it's bug-free under Stadia
- ...but try opening main page of something like imgur.com (at least on AMD's Kaveri) and watch amdgpu spam kernel errors

I've switched to macOS on an iMac. All those benchmarks are meaningless when the actual user experience is just, frankly speaking, shit. And yeah, vaapi doesn't even work via Ozone at all - heck, KDE itself still has a ton of issues under Wayland, but that's how Linux on desktop feels. Neverending beta. They rewrote kwin's compositing and still can't get stutter-free animations even under X11, when compiz had that decades ago. The fuck are they doing, moving BACKWARDS?

I got an iMac from 2012 from the company I work for, and using Catalina for a few days was an eye-opening experience. When you realize how far behind quality-wise Linux on the desktop actually is, it just makes you sad. All that tinkering to try to make things work, things that are screwed up by design, is just a waste of time.

And it's not Linux to blame, or KDE, or Wayland. It's the attitude of 3rd party software developers - important software, that people are using daily. Even when it's available, quality bar is usually at the "be happy that it's here and launches at all" level. That is NOT enough.

There's no need to bring macOS in the picture; on the usability side Windows 10 is already miles ahead of Linux on the desktop.

[Sonadow]

My experience with Chrome+Ozone is fine. Not great, but fine. I don't like that it uses the system borders and changes the mouse pointer on me but that's about the worst of it.

Chromium/Chrome + Ozone Wayland is unusable on Nouveau in laptops with both an intel iGPU and an Nvidia dGPU. Using DRI_PRIME=0 to force the Intel iGPU works, but using DRI_PRIME=1 reduces Chrome/Chromium into a completely garbled mess. This does not happen on desktop machines with only the Nvidia dGPU.

Running Chrome/Chromium + Ozone Wayland without a hardware accelerated UI is a mixed bag. On old versions of Gnome 3 (especially the version Debian 10 ships with), the browser flickers as though it's having a bloody seizure, and some versions tear badly on both Gnome and Plasma. The only way to avoid all these issues is to force Chromium/Chrome to use Swiftshader, and its slow enough to make a dual Xeon machine with 24 cores and 128GB of memory crawl like a snail.

[unic0rn]

Yes, they do. Are you 12 or what?

Of course Chrome has good performance. It has nothing else. Like a racing car stripped down of every feature, seats, air conditioned, music. Of course it goes fast theoretically (on a track)!
But the moment you want to do real life stuff, you lose plenty of time trying to find a solution for the absence of feature. You are so limited it can irritate the hell out of you.

As I like saying, Chrome is liking a racing Dacia with a 600 bhp engine. Firefox is a 200 bhp Aston Martin/Tesla/Volvo (a good car, for the analogy), on 99% of real life roads you don't feel the difference in speed, but the features and the customization you can get make it so that you gain 25% of the time you lost in pure speed.
Even Edge is better than Chrome at its own game, with more features.

I don't get people focusing on Chrome speed. It's like a Volkswagen made to deceive tests. Once you drive Chrome on real roads, it's a pain in the butt to get anything decent out of it.

i would gladly drop chrome if only i could.

that being said, give us some real life examples of missing features in chrome, compared to firefox or even edge.

writing several paragraphs about your car phantasies doesn't drive your point home.

[Mez']

Lmao people still use Firefox?

Yes, they do. Are you 12 or what?

Of course Chrome has good performance. It has nothing else. Like a racing car stripped down of every feature, seats, air conditioned, music. Of course it goes fast theoretically (on a track)!
But the moment you want to do real life stuff, you lose plenty of time trying to find a solution for the absence of feature. You are so limited it can irritate the hell out of you.

As I like saying, Chrome is liking a racing Dacia with a 600 bhp engine. Firefox is a 200 bhp Aston Martin/Tesla/Volvo (a good car, for the analogy), on 99% of real life roads you don't feel the difference in speed, but the features and the customization you can get make it so that you gain 25% of the time you lost in pure speed.
Even Edge is better than Chrome at its own game, with more features.

I don't get people focusing on Chrome speed. It's like a Volkswagen made to deceive tests. Once you drive Chrome on real roads, it's a pain in the butt to get anything decent out of it.

[Hash]

Lmao people still use Firefox?

[Charlie68]

And doesn't even work. I've had that flag enabled for the longest time now (it was already included in earlier builds), but it never worked for me.

It works fine for me, but there are three ways to enable it, I enable it on sites that support it.

[Vistaus]

OK, perfect ! Happy with these further improvements, but the great thing is the Back-forward cache flag, which is really handy.

And doesn't even work. I've had that flag enabled for the longest time now (it was already included in earlier builds), but it never worked for me.

[Vistaus]

The system borders usage can be disabled in the Chrome settings.

Have you read his post at all? He said he's using OZone. With OZone, the system borders can't be disabled.