Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox 109 vs. Chrome 109 Browser Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux + Core i9 13900K

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by Ladis View Post

    Well, my uncle bought an old All-in-One Lenovo PC and the previous owner took the RAM and we had big problems to buy the old compatible RAM module. If it was soldered, the original capacity was enough for us. Just my own experience.

    PS: Vote with your wallet. If there's enough people like you, the vendors will offer at least some models with RAM sockets. For peole like me, I have no problems to choose the right RAM capacity from the start (electronics is so cheap in the last decade, we don't have to postpone such expenses for full RAM capacity).
    I doubt I will have that luxury when I'm going to buy my next laptop. I already have quite a list of requirements I expect my future device to fulfill, I can't even be sure that such a device will even exist. If I had the choice, of course, I'd vote with my wallet. But for that to be feasible, there would have to be an option that I can actually buy. And as long as a fully customized Laptop (where you can actually customize any aspect, not just the stuff you can already customize when you buy from Lenovo, Framework etc.) doesn't exist, that sadly won't happen.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post
      I'd rather use the slower browser that isn't going to nobble the ability of adblockers to work properly thanks.
      100% ... also, odds are that you aren't even going to notice the speed difference, especially in normal day to day usage.

      Comment


      • #73
        As someone mentioned, I would like to see power consumption numbers for Chrome vs Firefox, as my empiric sense is that Firefox uses battery faster, although I still prefer to use it anyway.

        Comment


        • #74
          At the end of the day I still won't be using any Chromium-based browser.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by szymon_g View Post
            you could have tested MS Edge as well...
            And Falkon with the hardware acceleration flags enabled…

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by vegabook View Post
              Agreed and I have my RK3588S (which differss from standard 3588 only in having only one HDMI port, and slower PCIE disk but still very good), for 105 pounds (about 130 USD) from Ali Express (orange pi 5) 16GB version ordered. I agree that RPI4 now looks stupid and also I agree never knew why Pi400 didn't have 8GB version or place internal to keyboard for USB SSD. Ebon Upton was interviewed on Explaining Computers and basically the guy sounds like any other businessman talking about "putting things in OEM channel" ie only cares about corpo clients now. RK3588 also uses Mali GPU so full Vulkan support and drivers in Mesa if I understand correctly.
              right its sounds like the Raspberry pi foundation was taking over by the money people ...

              what was raspberry pi 5-8 years ago is today rockchip and pine64.org

              yes right the rockchip stuff is upstream linux kernel and upsteam mesa and yes its mali gpu.

              at start Raspberry pi foundation was only 1 person who worked at broadcom and by this alone the hardware was always very limited because the chip was always low end broadcom embedded processors and they even rejected it do do any other than that.

              this pine/rockchip stuff is very different to that its a good choice to go all in with ARM tech like ARM cpu and Mali GPU in the end opensource drivers is what matters for us. and also 8 nm samsung node shows they do serious business.

              i hope they will go to 6nm TSMC next it would be very good if they double the ram channel bus and make 64GB of LPDDR5 possible with a bigger gpu and even faster cpu.
              Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by prometeo View Post

                Mozilla lost a lot of volunteers as well, just like me, because they spent money on lots of things unrelated to browser development and made some very debatable decisions with internal executives and many suicidal decisions on the technical front...
                Mozilla, of course, is more than a browser company, even if Firefox gets a lot of the press (no matter what happens with the company their contributions to things such as standards and the Rust programming language will have a long term lasting impact on the software industry).

                It will be interesting to see if Google continues to funnel an estimated $400M/yr to Mozilla for making Google the default search engine on Firefox after the end of the year, or lets that contract expire entirely or further revises the payments downward (there are good business reasons to want to see Firefox continue as a product to avoid anti-trust claims, and some search revenue is certainly there, but $400M/yr is also real money). Mozilla could end up having to cut even deeper (and, horrors, the CEO might need to take an even larger pay cut).

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by avis View Post

                  Sorry, I've just read it: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9374407

                  Chrome, Firefox and Safari all tag requests with identifiers that are linked to the browser instance (i.e. which persist across browser restarts but are reset upon a fresh browser install). All three share details of web pages visited with backend servers. This happens via the search autocomplete feature, which sends web addresses to backend servers in realtime as they are typed.

                  1 Chrome tags these web addresses with a persistent identifier that allows them to be linked together. Safari uses an ephemeral identifier while Firefox sends no identifiers alongside the web addresses. The search autocomplete functionality can be disabled by users, but in all three browsers is silently enabled by default. Chrome sets a persistent cookie on first startup that is transmitted to Google upon browser restart

                  2 Firefox includes identifiers in its telemetry transmissions to Mozilla that are used to link these over time. Telemetry can be disabled, but again is silently enabled by default. Firefox also maintains an open websocket for push notifications that is linked to a unique identifier and so potentially can also be used for tracking and which cannot be easily disabled.

                  3 Safari defaults to a choice of start page that prefetches pages from multiple third parties (Facebook, Twitter etc, sites not well known for being privacy friendly) and so potentially allows them to load pages containing identifiers into the browser cache. Start page aside, Safari otherwise made no extraneous network connections and transmitted no persistent identifiers, but allied iCloud processes did make connections containing identifiers.

                  In summary, Chrome, Firefox and Safari can all be configured to be more private but this requires user knowledge (since intrusive settings are silently enabled) and active intervention to adjust setting
                  s.

                  Yeah, Firefox is so much better.
                  Search autocomplete obviously is something to disable, I've done that for years. I literally will not let a default browser on the net other than from a live USB stick and that only for something not tied to anything else I do. Even then shit like telemetry gets turned off.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Would be interesting to run a "privacy benchmark" of both browsers with Wireshark running and logging all connections. Each browser would, with no extensions and a default configuration open a deliberately privacy unfriendly mix of Facebook, Instagram, Google, and a couple of porn sites. Then compare all connections made other than to the toplevel sites. Look for sites connected to by one and not the other.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Luke View Post
                      Would be interesting to run a "privacy benchmark" of both browsers with Wireshark running and logging all connections. Each browser would, with no extensions and a default configuration open a deliberately privacy unfriendly mix of Facebook, Instagram, Google, and a couple of porn sites. Then compare all connections made other than to the toplevel sites. Look for sites connected to by one and not the other.
                      A problem with that test scenario is that a number of those sites dynamically generate content (and ads), which can easily result in a conclusion that is not related to the browser itself (and more what InstaBook is doing to you). Even Phoronix (if you are not a premium member, or are running various ad blockers) can end up serving a (not so) random set of ads trying to target you.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X