Firefox Finally Outperforming Google Chrome In SunSpider (phoronix.com) 40
Michael Larabel writes via Phoronix: Mozilla developers are celebrating that they are now faster than Google Chrome with the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, although that test has been superseded by the JetStream benchmark. Last week a new Firefox Nightly News was published that outlines that "We're now apparently beating Chrome on the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark!" The provided numbers now show Firefox easily beating Chrome in this decade-old JavaScript benchmark. The benchmarks come from AreWeFastYet.com. Meanwhile for the newer and more demanding JetStream 2.0 benchmark, Google Chrome continues to win easily over Firefox. You can learn more about the latest Firefox Nightly build advancements via Firefox Nightly News.
Google owns Javascript (Score:1)
They will always use it as a barrier to entry and their browser will always be the de facto standard for JS VMs.
Re: (Score:1)
It was originally developed at Netscape, their browser spun off into Mozilla.
Oracle owns the JavaScript trade mark [uspto.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Is this actually relevant? (Score:1)
When has the browser's processing efficiency ever been the rate limiting step for web page performance?
While I applaud Firefox for this, the reality is that they given the finger to their user base so many times, that I suspect the browser could have a benchmark so fast it gave performance back to the computer it ran on and people would still avoid it.
Re:Is this actually relevant? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about more than just raw performance on a decade old benchmark though.
Load time is affected by how quickly the Javascript can be parsed and compiled. Does this test measure just the execution time, or the load and compile time too?
In any case, much of the progress Google has made in the last few years has been around reducing power consumption. It matters a lot on mobile, and Firefox for Android is far, far worse than Chrome. While Chrome may technically be a tiny bit slower in some cases, because it's
Re: (Score:2)
Over 90% of both CPU time and network latencies is typically spent pulling malware (ads and tracking), blocking of which Google sabotages as much as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
So why doesn't uBlock make it better? It blocks all that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
When has the browser's processing efficiency ever been the rate limiting step for web page performance?
actually quite often. e.g. whenever you have to do a lot of computations, like crypto, complex graphs, compiling, 3d processing, games ... a lot of stuff. it's been a while that javascript is used for more than "dynamic web pages" or forms. and that's true for browser, but as a general purpose language too. however google's v8 engine is seemingly the only one worthy of running standalone. firefox would have a lot to catch up there. i'm surprised to know they even have someone working on the js engine, mozil
Re: Is this actually relevant? (Score:3)
Re:Is this actually relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is one metric among many. The reality is that most users will not see much performance difference between essentially the only two multiplatform browsers, "Chrom*" and Firefox, with mixed/real-world use.
And rest assured, both have given the finger to users in one way or another. But Chrom* adds a GIANT middle-finger by taking over web "standards" that will set us all back. They have only just begun to flex their muscles.
At essentially similar performance, while looking at security, user options/customization/control, memory usage, open-standards, and being community-driven, Firefox wins; but the Google marketing and control ensures that apparently won't matter as much as it should. If Firefox disappears or becomes so marginalized that it exerts zero influence on sites and standards, we are royally screwed. But while worrying about keeping two, we need even more than just two to keep the web healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
But Chrom* adds a GIANT middle-finger by taking over web "standards" that will set us all back.
like for example?
today's browsers are all largely compliant, and chrome went to very great lengths to lead by example in that. mozilla too ... once upon a time. while it is true that more competition would be desirable, nobody seems able to catch up and it seems there is nobody actually trying. otoh chrome isn't ie either. for starters its source is open and has spawned forks which are (e.g.) the most privacy respecting browsers around and which are actually slowly displacing chrome.
i get that you don't lik
Re: (Score:3)
>like for example?
There are many, don't have much time now...
*Googleâ(TM)s plans to no longer support elements of JavaScript dialogs and alert windows via third-party iframes, https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]
* Planned feature that would throttle Slack and Discord https://www.itpro.com/web-brow... [itpro.com]
* Trying to kill adblockers in many ways
* Messing up autocomplete: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/ch... [chromium.org]
* Pushing "webbundle" https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]
* AMP crap
And of course the many times they have
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for taking the time, this made for a few interesting reads for me, i hadn't been paying attention to this stuff for a while.
then again it doesn't strike me as evidence of google being such a proverbial menace to freedom. not more than governments, or ms or apple or fb ... like any other public o private entity with some weight, google tries to exert its influence and bend reality to its own interests, which clearly conflicts with the "general" interest, but such is life. however in that competition i
Re: (Score:2)
>" i see no specially shady practices of domination as we have had plenty in the past"
Well, I do.
>"mind you, google isn't opera"
But Opera is now Google. They threw away their code and changed it to be just another Chrom*, allowing Google to completely dictate all the "standards" for the core of the browser. Like all the other major browsers, except Firefox.
>"it has huge influence and this is a serious concern. but there are many actors in this battle"
Are there? Pretty much everyone rolled over.
Re: (Score:2)
AMP
Re: (Score:2)
Accelerated Mobile Pages is a technology developed by Google with the intent of speeding up access to content on mobile devices. While it claims to be open-source, Google maintains the majority of control over the technology, and for at least a certain period of time, they've prioritized AMP content in Google searches.
Google was also one of the biggest purveyors of Manifest v3, which prevents people from using ad blockers. While ad blockers are obviously controversial, some argue that
Re: (Score:2)
wei is just a very early draft proposal, it wasn't even formally announced. it is indeed a bad idea but general reception has been very eloquent about that already. i would be surprised if this gets much traction. then again i can understand the desire to have controlled clients for specific use cases. but it's just too controversial as a general solution. it's far better to code everything under the assumption that clients simply cannot be trusted, because that's the only way to respect user choice. some s
Re: (Score:2)
When has the browser's processing efficiency ever been the rate limiting step for web page performance?
Wait you use your browser for webpages? What are you, stuck in the 90s? I use it as a media player, video conferencing app, word processor, spreadsheet, access and write emails, enter data into complex databases, review lots of process trends, and when the boss isn't looking I type shit on Slashdot.
That is so 2012 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When has the browser's processing efficiency ever been the rate limiting step for web page performance?
Right now. Even basic pages are magabytes of Javascript frameworks and we're shoving more and more applications into browsers.
It also has a direct effect on efficiency for mobile devices. I've been using FF on my laptop until I saw these benchmarks and tried it myself on a real page. Loading the youtube homepage takes longer and uses 30-40% more energy on my little laptop. I made this a while ago but it's processor power over time as it loads the page 4 times:
https://i.imgur.com/BbFIt5P.pn... [imgur.com]
in other news (Score:1)
seriously? (Score:1)
You insensitive clod! (Score:3)
I have JavaScript disabled!
Re: (Score:2)
can i offer you a nice cookie in this trying times?
Re: (Score:2)
>"I have JavaScript disabled!"
Indeed, it will greatly increase web speed when the sites don't do anything at all but maybe display the "I'm broken" page :)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't use any websites that business users use then ...
Re: (Score:2)
Only business users that need popup ads, steal my data or hire shit html coders.
It is too late. (Score:1)
Do these benchmarks even matter? (Score:2)
Re:Do these benchmarks even matter? (Score:5, Informative)
>"Firefox has never felt slow, nor has Chrome ever felt faster."
There was a few-year period when Chrom* felt considerably faster. But that was many years ago. And the reason was that the web was shifting to massive amounts of browser-based computation and Firefox's engine needed some difficult changes. Changes that Chrom* already had because it was much newer. This was the period in the few years prior to 2017 when the Quantum engine was released, effectively doubling most performance metrics in Firefox. What made it difficult was that it was going to have to break some of the extensions to make those necessary changes. This understandably upset a lot of users, but if the changes were not made, the browser would never evolve or keep up. Nevertheless, all the major extensions were quickly available, the only thing that didn't materialize as much was the ability for extensions to control more of the UI- SOMETHING THAT CHROM* NEVER HAD ANYWAY. Meanwhile, those really needing UI tweaks could use userCSS in Firefox to customize.... another thing that Chrom* doesn't have.
But the damage was done, those few years allowed Google to aggressively market- barraging every web search with harassment to install Chrome. Then MS changing their browser to also be Chrom*. Meanwhile, we are STILL dealing with the myth that Chrom* is "much faster", something that hasn't been true for six years. So yeah, if your only desktop experience was Firefox in the last 6 years, you would never have seen much of any real-world performance advantage in Chrom*. And prior to maybe 2014/15, you wouldn't have, either (since the older engine did just fine with the state of the web at that time).
Mobile browsers- it is even more murky and complex.
>"but does it really matter compared to the bigger issues at play when choosing a browser?"
No, it doesn't. Standards, control, privacy, and user choice are all better in Firefox, and that should matter a lot more than some tiny performance metric one way or the other. Especially when we are teetering on the precipice of handing total web control to a single company who doesn't value any of those. Unfortunately, Google's mammoth marketing power masks these other factors. And when your OS/device has "browser" than happens to be Chrom*, most users won't know or care. They will only care when those "in the know" encourage them to install and use non-Chrom* browsers and then to speak up if some site or company tries to force their choice away.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't marketing that made me switch from Firefox to Chrome it was their abysmal performance and pointless UI fuckery.
This was forever ago but Firefox was eating up so much memory that it was unusable. Chrome handled the same workload with 1/4 of the memory and no performance issues.
I didn't want to switch. I wanted to support an OSS product. They forced me out.
Crowing about better performance on a 10-year-old Javascript test that's irrelevant confirms they still are in desperate need of better leadershi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you switched to something that had an even more restrictive UI. So there should have been little keeping you from going back in the last 6 years, since the performance issues were fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd go back to Firefox, but after enough of Google
No, they don't. (Score:2)
The only thing that matters is whether the sites you use work in the browser you are using. If not, you'll change.
So what? (Score:2)
So what? The speed with which the browser performs some operation is trivial compared to the speed with which I have to figure out the changed UI or the secret parameters to make it perform that operation, much less perform it efficiently.
Javascript is not just for the Web Browser (Score:2)