No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Show Firefox 57 Quantum Doing Well, But Chrome Largely Winning

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by GrayShade View Post

    I don't think it's going to be in 57. The larger issue, though, is that the implementation author is not interested in supporting the complete U2F spec, but cherry-picked the basic functionality. The relevant Bugzilla issues were locked to prevent people from complaining about this, see

    They don't say it, but the main issue is that U2F support is implemented in Rust and the spec requires downloading a JSON file. Currently, the Rust code in Firefox has no way to do HTTP requests via the browser's network stack.
    Sounds like it's a stop gap then until rust is more pervasive within firefox...


    • #42
      Originally posted by Vash63 View Post
      No, it's been default in 57 (nightly and beta) for weeks now.
      Ok. That's great anyway.


      • #43
        I've been using Firefox since version 2 (prolly 15 years!) But switched to Qupzilla recently.
        I still think FF is the best browser thanks to NoScript (should be integrated in mainline TBH) but the fact that Mozilla gave a favorable vote to EME/WebDRM plus the fact that they are now funded by George Soros and they openly support suppression of freedom of speech... It's well enough for me to ditch all their work.

        MOZILLA JOINS GEORGE SOROS’S EFFORTS IN LAUNCHING A STRIKE AGAINST “FAKE NEWS” Mozilla, the non-profit organization which runs the Firefox internet browser, said Wednesday it was launching an effort against “fake news,” as fact-checking software ba…


        • #44
          It's by looking at JavaScript benchmarks for years that Firefox stayed stuck. Now they are looking at performance on the top 100 real websites, and the browsing *is* faster. What the user is really seeing is the important thing when you're doing performance optimization, I'm very glad they're doing it that way now.


          • #45
            Originally posted by Morbis55 View Post
            Somebody who cares about privacy wouldn't even think for a second about using Chrome.
            No matter how much better it may be, there is no way I'd be supporting the worlds largest data mining company.

            Anyway Firefox 57 is running great, better than ever before.
            Speed is without complains for me. Privacy and security is more important though and that is ++ for Firefox
            You can always use Chromium, it doesn't have all features Chrome does, but it also doesn't include flash player that is actual security risk, but at the same time offer similar/same performance as Chrome.

            Originally posted by Gusar View Post
            You keep repeating this nonsense, but it's completely incorrect. Firefox is not getting "rich headerbars". Its CSD mode will look *exactly* like its SSD mode, except there will be minimize/maximize/close buttons on the tabbar instead of them being outside the application (in the server-side decoration). Basically, how it works already in Windows and macOS. And like Chrome does it on all OSes, but on Linux it gives you the option to switch to SSD. BTW, Firefox will have such an option too. So, as much as it pains me to inform you, Firefox is not advancing your "death to SSD" agenda.
            Actually, Firefox will support propet gtk headerbar (unlike Chromium/Chrome), few months ago experimental patch was pushed, and you could compile it, it wasn't that impressive and had quite a bit of bugs, but those bugs are known and will be fixed (if they arrent already), so yeah, Firefox will follow/respect gtk theme buttons as far as I know. So no, it will not look exactly the same, and no they do not promote anything, they just need to implement that and move with time (as they do).


            • #46
              I just ran the motionmark in both chrome 63.0.3223.8 dev and firefox 57.0b3 nightly, no addons, Windows 10 64-bit.

              TL;DR Chrome does better overall because firefox drops the ball really bad.

              Overall: 201.74
              Multiply: 523.71
              Canvas Arcs: 311.80
              Leaves: 559.17
              Paths: 949.34
              Canvas Lines: 2844.53
              Focus: 1.00
              Images: 92.22
              Design: 75.17
              Suits: 323.75

              Overall: 166.93
              Multiply: 123.67
              Canvas Arcs: 890.08
              Leaves: 177.08
              Paths: 2535.93
              Canvas Lines: 2035.73
              Focus: 13.47
              Images: 46.93
              Design: 13.62
              Suits: 116.20


              • #47
                Originally posted by JeansenVaars View Post
                even some sites like IMDB only allow Chrome for video trailers streaming...
                But they seem to work fine with my Firefox.


                • #48
                  profoundWHALE Michael was very fair to firefox, even tho it's fans (and I am one of them(fans)) think he wasn't (because of javascripts etc.). He called 2.6-3.2GHz quoad core i7 a "modest CPU", and in reality it is, but look at desktop browser resolutions, and you would see that 1080p is not even 20%, while dominant resolution is still 1366x768, while "other high" usually doesn't mean >1080p. With that on mind, those PC's are from "casuals", and they usually run Intel dual cores (with HT at best), and those PC's main purpose is web browsing. With all that on mind, it is actually unfair to test browsers on even "mid range" CPU's, let alone high end,a nd since msot of the web is plagued with javascripts, it is logical to test for it the most.

                  With that said, I've done extensive testing on really low end hardware (stock FX-4100 with turbo disabled), and results are not better for Firefox, in fact they are much worse. One note is that I've used:
                  layers.acceleration.force-enabled = true
                  browser.tabs.remote.force-enable = true
                  for testing, but that should only improve performance (in Firefox 55). Another note is that resolution used is comparable to "1440x900", so it is not 1080p or 720p. Also, I've forced DRI2, results would be probably better in some areas, but still, it would be better for both...

                  So results of Chromium (v61) vs Firefox (v55) are:
                  Motionmark: C 259, F 115, Chromium 125% faster.
                  Basemark: C 470, F 316, Chromium 49% faster.
                  ARES-6: C 54ms, F 174ms, Chromium 222% faster.
                  Speedometer: C 83, F 45, Chromium 84% faster.
                  Jetstream: C 101, F 103, Firefox 2% faster.
                  Octane: C 17447, F 16231, Chromium 7% faster.
                  They speak for themselves, and even tho I am Firefox fan, msot of the time I do use Chromium, and you can see why. But it is not all bad for Firefox, on some pages (like Level1Techs forums) Firefox actually gives smoother experience, and especially with DRI3 and TearFree option enabled you can spot the difference, even on light websites such as youtube or phoronix. For example, when page is still loading (here on phoronix, adds tend to be terrible slow to load sometimes/most of the time) in Chromium, when I scroll down the page there is stutter, when page is fully loaded everything is smooth and fine, while on Firefox (and especially with TearFree) it's super smooth regardless if page is loaded or not, same goes for youtube or any other site. So, browsing experience (aside from loading slower, and javascripts) could be better on Firefox.

                  TL;DR: Michael should test it on his Pentiums, Celerons and his Athlon x3, adn Firefox developers too .


                  • #49
                    To me, Firefox 57 is just an appetizer. The main course is Firefox 59 (when Quantum Render will be enabled by default).


                    • #50
                      To me, Firefox 57 is just an appetizer. The main course is Firefox 59 (the release in which Quantum Render will be enabled by default).