Chrome 91 Benchmarks On Linux Showing Off Even Better Performance

[Vistaus]

Nope, that's wrong. Other performance matters.

On my laptop I have 4GB ram (and no swap), so I care about the number of tabs I can open. And with Chromium that's a hell of a lot less then with Firefox. With Chrome my system will lockup in no time (not even mouse movement) forcing me to reboot.

Also, it's on battery. So I care who will allow longest browsing without recharge.

Unfortunately, none of this is tested.

Funny. I can open a ton more apps in Vivaldi than in Chrome. X11, 8 GB of RAM, laptop. Firefox will lock up after a number of tabs or starts crashing tabs. Also reproduced on a clean profile.

[Vistaus]

Is this a deb or rpm package?

It's a cli tool (cat-licking interface).

[Vistaus]

Chrome don't works on Wayland natively, but Firefox works. Chrome Wayland support currently work-in-progress, but only with Ozone abstraction layer, that by the way have dozens of issues, during Firefox works on Wayland full natively and I don't see any issues. On benchmarks Chrome works about 2x faster, but on practice I don't see it during every day web browsing. I used Chrome during many years, but switched to Firefox for native Wayland support.

Maybe not so much difference on Wayland, but on X11, Chromium-based browsers are way faster for me than Firefox. Clean profile and everything.

[frackeverything]

[QUOTE=discordian;n1258759]
Yeah, and at the same time you lose millennia while decoding videos on those CPUs. Any crappy PC or even portables like the PSP could decode YouTube on hardware back in early 2000s, then came google and changed codecs to some crappy vp8 .../QUOTE]

Lmao vp9 is objectively superior to h264 and mpeg stuff in every single way. Not to mention open source and patent troll free. Classic case of old man yelling at the sky.

[Azrael5]

Just a guess:

Interesting. Would be interesting to know how many people have benefited from that amount of financial resoruces and how many others have lost the same amount of financial means.

[smitty3268]

> "saves over 17 years of CPU time daily"

What does that even mean? The most you can save a day is 24 hours. where are the other 16 years and 364 days coming from?

5.5 seconds of CPU time per day, times 100 million users. Or whatever numbers they are plugging in.

[smitty3268]

Firefox cannot compete with Chrome. Why is it so mediocre?

Just a wild guess:

In the most recently reported fiscal year, Google's revenue amounted to 181.69 billion US dollars.

"In CY ((calendar year)) 2019, Mozilla Corporation generated $465M from royalties, subscriptions and advertising revenue, excluding one-time litigation settlement revenue,"

[Azrael5]

Firefox cannot compete with Chrome. Why is it so mediocre?

[paulpach]

> "saves over 17 years of CPU time daily"

What does that even mean? The most you can save a day is 24 hours. where are the other 16 years and 364 days coming from?

[cynical]

Chrome don't works on Wayland natively, but Firefox works. Chrome Wayland support currently work-in-progress, but only with Ozone abstraction layer, that by the way have dozens of issues, during Firefox works on Wayland full natively and I don't see any issues. On benchmarks Chrome works about 2x faster, but on practice I don't see it during every day web browsing. I used Chrome during many years, but switched to Firefox for native Wayland support.

Though they hide it behind feature flags, Firefox's hardware acceleration for video also works well. I'm running it natively under Wayland and decoding vp9 video with Firefox using 6% cpu. It's been a great experience so it's a bit of a shame not to have it out of the box.