Firefox 92 vs. Chrome 94 Browser Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

[mayankleoboy1]

1. Optane as a "bencjmark" has been retired by Google (in 2017!), as it doesnt test anything that is important for the web. In fact, optimizing for Octane reduces performance in real-world code that runs on website . See the V8 dev blog : https://v8.dev/blog/retiring-octane .
2. Same with Kraken and Sunspider - Mozilla retired it years ago.
3. WTH is "Maze solver" even testing that you have included it in this test, and that I should care about?
4. Jetstream and ARES-6 test more or less similar functionality... You should use either of the two

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

couldn't phoronix take the source code of three.js and some of the examples and add a log to file fps ? so we could see firefox fps vs chrome fps threejs ?

[sophisticles]

Can someone explain to me the significance of these benchmarks. What exactly do they represent? How does the performance "advantage" shown correlate with real world experience?

[arQon]

I can get hardware accelerated video on Firefox but not Chromium/Brave.

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.

[elcazador]

Could you test in other distro like Solus, Arch and Fedora cos in my speedometer testing, they were ahead by at least 20 points? Ubuntu and Debian were at around 107 while the former three were at around 130.

[Jdteck2022]

Aaaaaaaamd you don’t share a memory usage or cpu usage image....... waste of server space this story man......

[Myownfriend]

That is exactly how Firefox is. The dumb wankers at Mozilla Corp have been destroying everything about Firefox and turning it into a useless pile of crap. Hell bent on sabotaging any success they might have at literally every turn.

Care to explain how?

[Mario Junior]

Chrome doesn't seem as stable when running 100+ tabs. Even the tab navigation sucks. Some tabs get stuck and seems to slow down a lot. Firefox can handle all background tasks, both active and passive ones.

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

[Hibbelharry]

That is exactly how Firefox is. The dumb wankers at Mozilla Corp have been destroying everything about Firefox and turning it into a useless pile of crap. Hell bent on sabotaging any success they might have at literally every turn. It's no surprise Firefox has been losing it's userbase at an alarming rate.

Is this still the quantum step in development?

My answer would be: quantum was one of the best things they ever did. Firefox before quantum got dead slow, crashy and just not fun to use anymore. They needed to modernize their stack. They needed to make it reliable, even while that killed lots of old extensions. If they wouldn't have done this, firefox would be much more obsolete then it's now.

Since they released quantum and it's follow up releases they've become competitive again.

My gripe: It took them too long until they reached that insight. They should have gone that step much sooner.

And firefox is still much more versatile than chrome.

Also the last Firefox UI redesign was a complete joke. It's like they were copying the Fisher Price designed UI macOS Big Sur picked up.

I don't think so. Firefox is very usable today ans looking decently modern.

The SUV analogy is awful. They're more like 500 bhp with a chassis that weighs twice as much as the race car. SUV's are poor to maneuver and bloated ass heavy. Just another example of North American ignorance and stupidity.

The SUV analogy was awful, but yours is not any better.

Chrome doesn't seem as stable when running 100+ tabs. Even the tab navigation sucks. Some tabs get stuck and seems to slow down a lot. Firefox can handle all background tasks, both active and passive ones.

I'm lazy, currently i've got about 1300 tabs open. I just don't do bookmarks since I investigated that firefox will just not die having that many tabs open. Chrome can't do that, it's a memory hog, it will become dog slow way before 100 tabs and grind to a halt a about a tenth of that amount.

[jacob]

Who cares about these?

Chrome is a 600bhp racing Dacia, fast but utter crap.

Chrome has been stripped down of everything useful and is fast, like a racing car with the driver's seat only and a bare metal interior.
Like a racing car though, once on the roads there's nothing you can do comfortably with it. And there are so many limitations to it that you prefer the more versatile 150 bhp SUV, that is not as fast but with which you can hit your commute as much as your errands or your holidays travel. Even Microsoft have understood that with Edge.
And indeed it's quickly become the only decent competition to Firefox.

Google is sabotaging Chrome, probably a bit less on the desktop than on the mobile front where it's already unusable. It's already dying the way IE did.

Nothing spies on you quite as fast as Chrome