Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome Firefox Google Mozilla

Firefox vs Chrome: Speed and Memory (laptopmag.com) 160

Posted by EditorDavid from the battle-of-the-benchmarks dept.
Mashable aleady reported Firefox Quantum performs better than Chrome on web applications (based on BrowserBench's JetStream tests), but that Chrome performed better on other benchmarks. Now Laptop Mag has run more tests, agreeing that Firefox performs beter on JetStream tests -- and on WebXPRT's six HTML5- and JavaScript-based workload tests. Firefox Quantum was the winner here, with a score of 491 (from an average of five runs, with the highest and lowest results tossed out) to Chrome's 460 -- but that wasn't quite the whole story. Whereas Firefox performed noticeably better on the Organize Album and Explore DNA Sequencing workloads, Chrome proved more adept at Photo Enhancement and Local Notes, demonstrating that the two browsers have different strengths...

You might think that Octane 2.0, which started out as a Google Developers project, would favor Chrome -- and you'd be (slightly) right. This JavaScript benchmark runs 21 individual tests (over such functions as core language features, bit and math operations, strings and arrays, and more) and combines the results into a single score. Chrome's was 35,622 to Firefox's 35,148 -- a win, if only a minuscule one.
In a series RAM-usage tests, Chrome's average score showed it used "marginally" less memory, though the average can be misleading. "In two of our three tests, Firefox did finish leaner, but in no case did it live up to Mozilla's claim that Quantum consumes 'roughly 30 percent less RAM than Chrome,'" reports Laptop Mag.

Both browsers launched within 0.302 seconds, and the article concludes that "no matter which browser you choose, you're getting one that's decently fast and capable when both handle all of the content you're likely to encounter during your regular surfing sessions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox vs Chrome: Speed and Memory More

Firefox vs Chrome: Speed and Memory

Comments Filter:

  • STOP TALKING ABOUT SPEED! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT SPEED?! It's not been about SPEED since... 2001? It's about all the KEYLOGGERS and SPYWARE and fucking BLOAT BULLSHIT that these assholes fill their shitty browsers with these days. They have ALL become useless. The latest Firefox is so bad that I finally went to try out Palemoon, but was so turned off by its bizarre, sketchy installer that I forgot about that again.

    Sigh. There is not one browser that is usable these days.

    • Yes there is one... wget.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by fafalone ( 633739 )
      Not only is it all about speed, there is a suspiciously large number of articles here talking about how great 57 is. Every little positive feature of 57 gets its own story posted. I question the motive behind this. A couple stories back, I outed a Mozilla undercover employee shilling for them in the comments, wouldn't be surprised if it went further-- something is being done to get a whole bunch of positive coverage here, when that certainly doesn't seem to be the general consensus among users.

      And I absol

      • here is a suspiciously large number of articles here talking about how great 57 is

        Oh noes. It must be a conspiracy perpetrated by the shadowy Them who are out to get you.

        I outed a Mozilla undercover employee shilling for them in the comments

        You did no such thing. To repeat, I have no association with Mozilla whatsoever. Your fantasies are truly sad. You are a paranoid delusional and you need help.

    • Please point us to the keyloggers and spyware in Firefox. I know Chrome is basically Google's creepy tentacle into our personal information, but why do you think Mozilla does the same thing, in stark opposition to their stated ideals and track record?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Noscript (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    When will Noscript 10 be available for Firefox? Until that's released, Firefox is garbage. If developer builds allow legacy extensions to run , the Firefox developers were more than capable of doing so in official releases. Quite simply, the goal is to prevent users from running legacy extensions. In the process, security and functionality have been reduced for everyone.

    • Use Brave (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly.

      Brave, on the other hand, has NoScript-like functionality built into the core software and works out of the box, along with ad/tracker blocking and fingerprint protection.

      It makes sense, as Brave is led by Eich, who was helping lead Mozilla when it was actually good.

    • Within days, as promised by the sole developer. This is not Mozilla's fault, they've been warning us for two whole years that XUL compatibility was ending.

      Until Noscript 10 is released, use uMatrix instead.

  • Edge (Score:5, Funny)

    by aglider ( 2435074 ) on Sunday November 19, 2017 @05:03PM (#55582567) Homepage

    I wonder how these two compare with MS edge browser.

  • it's useless without addons (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    download statusbar, classic theme restorer, noscript. Without all the addons that made Firefox 3.0 great, speed is useless. Like a car without seats, or a bar without beer.

  • Uhh...maybe that's because the current upgrade wasn't related to JavaScript features? That's not a good test to test it with.

  • Jeez I mean come on! They didn't want to test IE 6? The real reason is because there has not been a single browser made for the web since IE 6. Don't believe me? Well go to abovetopsecret or infowars forums and ask if the world is flat. Then you'll have your answer.

    only fascist alt left and the unitary juche right believe in and use those other wannabe browsers. True AOL internet aficionados use internet explorer 6 and we explored every nook and cranny with IE6, and the more genius amongst us even staked cl

  • Don't care (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday November 19, 2017 @05:27PM (#55582701)

    Tell us which one is faster to remove all the ads, shutting up all the audio and video, blocking facebook , pinterest and twitter buttons, preventing fingerprinting and trackers, blocking webRTC and all 30 external javascript links that each page seems to 'need' these days and ... then we can talk.

  • Firefox Quantum Sucks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Firefox Quantum sucks at video playback, and eats battery like nobody's business.
    It's also a memory hog, for me it uses over 1 GB for four tabs.

    People keep quoting low memory numbers but seem to be missing the forked processes.

    • You're lucky then. I was at 3.5 GB (!) with seven tabs in two Windows. An about 1 GB increase over the already insane 2.5 GB it would take with previous versions.
      One of the reasons to not use Chrome, besides its issues of privacy and Microsoft-style monopoly building, is that it uses bizarre amounts of RAM.
      And now Firefox chooses to "improve" by topping Chrome in precisely that aspect?
      Yuck.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Teun ( 17872 )
        You have a problem, here on Kubuntu FF57 uses between 650 and 820 MB of ram and that's with some 60 tabs...
        Only when I go to sites full of Java Script like the Google search ram usage gets out of hand.
  • I use both Firefox and Chrome on an older Mac. I got the Mac in 2009. I use Firefox for the New York Times website and have been using it for years. Performance was never a problem until I upgraded to Firefox Quantum. The performance sucks and it takes around 2 minutes 30 seconds to load the NYT homepage. Other sites, such as Slashdot, load fine. Any ideas?

    • Re:Firefox Quantum much slower (Score:5, Informative)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday November 19, 2017 @06:13PM (#55582891)

      I would never read the NYT, but everything, and I mean EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE I have gone with Firefox 57 is noticeably faster than 56 or prior, under an older Linux machine. And that is with 2 addons. I have been very impressed.

      Perhaps the Mac build has some issue on your machine? I don't know...

    • The performance sucks

      You fundamentally broke something. User error. There's just no way around it. In every metric in every way across a massive install based by every tester the new Firefox is faster than the old.

      You can start by Refreshing your profile: https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org]
      If that doesn't work export your bookmarks and password file and nuke your entire profile.
      If that doesn't work then maybe set your computer on fire, pour salt on it and chant in some long lost language until the spirits of slowness vanish.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      Seven year old Thinkpad here, loading the NYT site (for the first time ever) takes a good second.

  • So Firefox Quantum, what is next, Firefox Cherry? Firefox Dark? Firefox Quartz? Firefox Victory?

    I will only upgrade if it gives my screen a cool blue glow... and I can mix in some Abraxo Cleaner and Turpentine for a big bang.

  • Real-world benchmarks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Sunday November 19, 2017 @08:16PM (#55583551) Homepage

    Which of those benchmarks measures browser performance after leaving a couple dozen tabs open for three weeks? Huh?

  • Again: Who cares.
    Even if and when Firefox is slower, it still to be preferred. The obvious reason is that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: Google's attempt at owning the internet.
    That they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and as a result manage to play the abuse smoother does not make it less true.
    People who use Chrome are either uninterested in matters of internet freedom, naive, or harmful.

    • If MSIE had been cross-platform, adhered to standards, and had an open source rendering engine... then many fewer people would've had a problem with MSIE's dominance.

  • I dumped both Firefox and Chrome and now use Opera [url:http://www.opera.com] instead. Opera isn't the memory hog that Firefox is and doesn't crash/burn/get stupid as Chrome often does.

    Opera has a very cool feature: highlight text and Opera displays Search and Copy boxes. This is a time saver if you copy/paste or search much.

  • What is that LaptopMag.com source? Underneath the article I found scams in my language pointing to "interesting" articles "FROM THE WEB". It cointained even links to obvious cosmetics-selling scams posing as state-established Czech doctors' organization (Camera Medica Bohemica - "eská lékaská komora"). That is totally outlawed in my country!

    Don't trust a source that takes money from scammers.

  • I know it's pedantic and nerd-rage-y but I won't use Chrome because the lack of a menu bar is too distracting for me.

    LK

  • My Mom has run stock Firefox for years, with auto-updates turned on. No add-ons or plugins. FF 57 auto-installed and was completely unusable, taking minutes to do anything. It is now shut down and Chrome installed in its place.
  • Still, Firefox needs to get it's base of valuable plug-ins ported to Quantum.

    Hate to say it, yet I value "Tab Groups" more than what Quantum offers. So I am sticking w/ Firefox v56.

    C'mon, you Firefox developers and contributors, PLEASE get those valuable plug-ins/extensions ported up!

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close