Firefox 92 vs. Chrome 94 Browser Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

[Slartifartblast]

So has Mozilla Corp. They do it ALL the time. That is their MO.

Agreed, the ridiculous line spacing introduced by Proton for bookmarks and menus that wastes huge amount of screen space. Mozilla developers, not everyone has a 32 inch 4k monitor so perhaps it would be a good idea to let that be easily user adjustable rather than having to resort a userchrome file to fix your half arsed interface design.

[Mez']

It's funny you didn't discover the concept of bookmarks or trying to get organized.

What are you on about? I have enough bookmarks as it is. At some point, if you need to scroll forever down a list, or go to sub-sub-sub-folders, bookmarking gets unproductive.
Also, bookmarking is great for portals (page one of a site), or for specific tutorial pages. But bookmarking a page you will read once when you make the time makes no sense.
The only useful thing for these is a "Reading list" (Read Later) such as in Chrome lately (their only decent feature).

[rhavenn]

The Multi-Account Containers Extension (Mozilla native extension) for Firefox is worth it alone. Lets you have multiple tabs with different accounts logged into the same place (ie: a user, admin and/or dev accounts logged into Azure portal, for example). The real world usage differences between the 2 performance wise is not noticeable in my opinion on the majority of sites.

[jjmcwill2003]

What are real world JavaScript cases where Firefox user experience would be severely impacted vs. Chromium? I'm rather happy with its performance on my Z2 Force Android device, which isn't a rocket, but not low-end either (OctanceV2 score is ~7k).

.

I guess I have an opposing viewpoint. My biggest "performance" use case is the Caltopo mapping application. With a lot waypoints and routes on a map, their rendering gets really slow to the point that sometimes the browser will pop up a dialog saying, "This app isn't responding... Wait or Cancel"

Chrome is significantly better at handling these use cases than Firefox, and it's proven out in these canned benchmarks. It's just a faster web browser for JS heavy stuff.

Now, I'm sure a lot of JS/web devs will chime in and suggest that Caltopo is probably using really inefficient rendering code. That could be the case. Feel free to apply for a position with the Caltopo team as a (paid) developer and get those performance issues fixed. I for one, would be extremely grateful to see Caltopo running faster. :-D

But until that happens, I run Chrome for Caltopo (and Firefox for just about everything else, because it's good enough.)

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

Not one bit. Everybody knows Chrome is good at benchmarking. But nobody actually cares about these when browsing.


I do.
A while back, I had 870 tabs open. I have a huge number open especially when leaving a research pending on a topic, so that I can take it on when I make time. But I usually have around 200 tabs in 5-7 windows, organized by themes (like I would use workspaces).
And with Firefox, I never ever lose them. I still have tabs open for more than 2 years back. And yes, I will come back to them at some point. So no, limitation period doesn't apply.

Is this like 1 cat picture per tab or some tabs have multiple pics ?

[caligula]

Who the hell uses more than 100 tabs? Seems like a /g/ user with thousand tabs opened.

Sure go ahead blame the user. FWIW 100 tabs isn't that many considering that even the lowest end machines can deal with say 10 tabs, and these high end workstations have more than 10x as much RAM. So the only reason this doesn't work is bad quality code in Chrome. Seriously look at the tab row, it even becomes impossible to click on a tab since Chrome makes them smaller and smaller.

[Termy]

Who the hell uses more than 100 tabs? Seems like a /g/ user with thousand tabs opened.

Who the hell doesn't use MAC and the like?
Ever thought of different preferences/workflows/usecases?

I currently have around 250 Tabs in 17 Groups - i use them as kind of a "intermediate bookmark" so to speak.
And with Firefox thats absolutely no problem - chromium will choke to death when trying to do so. (and i'm not even talking about ram usage)

[pkese]

Phoronix: Firefox 92 vs. Chrome 94 Browser Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

Given last week's release of Chrome 94, here are some fresh browser benchmarks looking at Firefox 92 stable against Chrome 94 running on Ubuntu Linux...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-94-Benchmarks

It would be nice to have a benchmark that would measure the amount of memory used ... i.e. load 50 tabs and see how much memory is left.

[krzyzowiec]

That's interesting - because according to bugzilla, video accel on FF has been broken for about 9 months (that is, 3 months after finally getting it working, sigh...) and the ETA to *start* looking at fixing it is FF94 at best. (ref: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1683808).

Can you share your HW / display server / etc, and the half-dozen or so about:config flags that you're using? (And any env vars beyond the MOZ_X11_EGL=1 base requirement). Thanks.

Just read the last post in that bug report. I'm using Wayland and a Radeon 6800 with the open-source driver. The only special env var I use is "MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1". All I did was set the flags as mentioned in that bug report and it works. One thing I should mention is that you need to set media.av1.enabled to false, because hardware acceleration only works for VP9 in my experience.

Here you can see the cpu usage numbers I experience while playing video on Youtube.

[Duff~]

Mozilla T-Fox still number 1 on diversity and Antifa funding.
Checkmate Shitlord Chrome.