A new speed milestone for Chrome

https://blog.chromium.org/2022/03/a-new-speed-milestone-for-chrome.html

by twapi • 4 years ago

184 152 4 years ago

blog.chromium.org

underyx• 4 years ago

My Speedometer results on an M1 Mac are:

- Chrome v99: 204

- Safari: 266

How come I fall so far short of the post's advertised fastest-of-any-browser 300?

Edit: Running in incognito got me a 251, so some of the slowdown must be from extensions.

Edit 2: Seems like 1password and uBlock Origin decrease the score by around 30 each, I got a 276 with both disabled.

notRobot• 4 years ago

Can you maybe also do a test for Firefox on your machine? I'm very interested in seeing how it holds up.

selectodude2• 4 years ago

I get sub-150 on an M1 Pro in Firefox.

fabrice_d• 4 years ago

I get 240 with Firefox nightly (no addons) on a Mac Air M1.

minedwiz• 4 years ago

207 on my M1 Max, v98.0 stable.

zamadatix3• 4 years ago

I get ~304 (all extensions disabled) but that's on an M1 Max. Other differences might be the amount of background apps/tasks - I usually keep mine pretty slim.

pronlover723• 4 years ago

I got Chrome v99: 290, Safari v15.3: 279 on M1Max MPB I suspect it might go faster if I turn off scaling.

ziml77• 4 years ago

Saw about the same impact of 1p and uBO in Firefox.

thatwasunusual• 4 years ago

On my i9 2.4GHz 8-core, 64GB RAM, 2019 Mac, and with no extensions:

- Chrome v99: 168

- Firefox v97: 132

- Safari v15: 139

Of course I forgot to benchmark Chrome _before_ I updated it. :(

ihateolives3• 4 years ago

Not directly comparable, but on my Ryzen 2600X 32GB desktop that I built in early 2019 update didn't do anything.

- Chrome 98: 157

- Chrome 99: 157

- Firefox 97: 104

- Edge 99: 146

Oh well.

nevi-me• 4 years ago

M1Pro

Chrome v98: 290 Chrome v99: 316 Safari : 278

All were with incognito/private browsing to remove the effect of extensions

pg_bot• 4 years ago

Hmm on my m1 air (16GB) I get a score of 300 ± 15 in incognito.

BoardsOfCanada• 4 years ago

Chrome starts with different options for different users to try out new features. They state which features they ran the benchmarks with in the fine print below the article:

"Data source for Mac statistics: Speedometer 2.0 comparing Chrome 99.0.4812.0 --enable-features=CanvasOopRasterization --use-cmd-decoder=passthrough "

eole666• 4 years ago

Maybe because Safari runs exclusively on MacOS and so can have a lot of OS specific optimizations ?

mtreis86• 4 years ago

On my old fx8350 (overclocked) I get 60 in windows but 70 on linux with the same browser, Vivaldi. I wonder what the difference is.

etaioinshrdlu• 4 years ago

I'm guessing there was renewed urgency for responsiveness due to 120fps displays on M1 mac's - which made lower frame rates compared to Safari more noticeable.

zamadatix3• 4 years ago

Seems like an unlikely driver in it's own, especially considering those didn't show up until near the end of this time period. Meanwhile Chrome has been needing to run more power efficiently at similar refresh rates and pixel counts on Android devices all the same. Of course ARM Android devices don't have Safari to compare to nor are they a new platform ripe with as many low hanging fruit optimizations so it's not going to be the lead topic here.

The truth is this is the same kind of stuff Chrome (and any browser) has been working on since the software launched. Regardless of which devices come out nobody has ever said "I like that this browser is slower and less efficient than the other".

rado• 4 years ago

Former champion Safari has been dog slow since v15. My benchmark https://youtu.be/5yCXPCVvUBY

rektide2• 4 years ago

apple's long defended their anti-choice stance under the pretense that they have the best, fastest, lowest resource usage browser. it's long been a tiring, self-aggrandizing, & dominionist perspective- of fantastically limited consideration given how constrained & limited the platform support Safari opts for. now that even that braggadocio is crumbling, i'm wondering what's left for Apple's pompous claims about rejecting alternatives.

i confess, i don't think it matters a lot for most users how fast the system is. safari, chrome, whatever, they're close. but it's still pretty revolting that apple insists on their own reality distortion field, that they cannot engage in a healthy & honest discussion about how and why they block off choice.

saagarjha3• 4 years ago

i don't think it matters a lot for most users how fast the system is

This is why we had months of people raving about M1, of course.

greggman32• 4 years ago

There are certainly lots of situations where one browser beats another

For example in this microbenchmark, Chrome is 10x slower than both FF and Safari at one method.

https://jsbenchit.org/?src=cfcb916dd03df45952183e6484a14344

Here's another where in one case Firefox is 54x faster than Chrome

https://jsbenchit.org/?src=beb26575ad78caa99a2a8c45ce2b780f

pictur• 4 years ago

the color palette on the site is really weird. it took me 5 minutes to see the browser names :D

jart3• 4 years ago

Here's a conundrum. Fabrice Bellard's QuickJS engine takes 3 minutes to run the test262 ECMAScript conformance suite. d8 takes 37 minutes to run test262 according to https://medium.com/compilers/testing-the-v8-javascript-engin... and it crashes for me in Chrome https://v8.github.io/test262/website/default.html Has anyone else observed this performance disparity? Could it really be possible that a JavaScript engine written by one guy is 10x faster for everyday code than the flagship product of a flagship company? Because if that's the case it'd make Fabrice Bellard the Han Solo of programmers.

stock_toaster• 4 years ago

I think Fabrice Bellard (ffmpeg, qemu, Bellard's formula, quickjs, tinygl, tinycc), could _already_ be considered the Han Solo of programmers.

vasco• 4 years ago

There's more chuck norris jokes about Fabrice than chuck norris. And in this case they are not jokes.

kevingadd• 4 years ago

Are you sure they're running the same set of tests? There's over 10000 tests in the full set that webpage runs, but there are subsets and fabrice might be running one of the subsets.

FWIW test262 falls over partway through in Firefox and I have to kill the tab, though it doesn't crash. There are a bunch of test failures as well for things that are probably not implemented by anyone (I'm curious how many of the tests QuickJS actually passes)

My guess for any performance gap would be that the browser runner probably sets up an entirely separate execution context (iframe?) to run each test cleanly so they don't interfere with each other.

whizzter• 4 years ago

test262 is a conformance test and as such mostly runs small test-snippets once to verify, what counts here is setup, parsing and first-run execution.

While V8 has added a fast first-stage interpreter there are probably a ton of other overheads when starting a V8 context as well as "inefficiencies" related to preparing code for later JIT optimizations.

So for more CPU intensive code written in JS where the JIT activates the tables shifts radically, compare QuickJS with V8 (JIT-less) and V8 (JIT) on benchmarks, particularly Raytrace, Crypto and NavierStokes that should be pushing the computation performance. https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html

mort96• 4 years ago

I wrote a small lisp in Rust. I try to not do obviously stupid things, but it's just a basic parser + AST interpreter; its execution speed is slow compared to even a basic bytecode interpreter, and it's absurdly slow compared to a JIT. Yet it runs hello world in a fraction of a millisecond, whereas V8 needs tens of milliseconds.

In executing one computationally intensive program, V8 would be many orders of magnitude faster than my program. But in a test which largely consists of running tens of thousands of small, uninteresting test case programs, my silly interpreter would outperform V8 by orders of magnitude.

Essentially, performance is complicated, and improving throughput often has costs in other areas.

austincheney7• 4 years ago

https://jsbench.github.io/#b39045cacae8d8c4a3ec044e538533dc

Look at DOM performance. Chrome has a ceiling of about 45m ops/s where FF max speed is dependent upon your ram and bus speed reaching beyond 4-5b ops/s. In both though querySelectors perform at about the same speeds as slow as 25000 ops/s.

I have written an OS GUI that executes in the browser. It loads, including full state restoration in about 120ms. I was recently interviewing with a search engine company, one of the big ones, where I could demonstrate that JavaScript tool can execute file system search much faster than the OS and produce better results. They seemed really impressed.

Despite all of this my biggest learning about performance is that mentioning performance during job interviews shows that you are incompatible with other JavaScript developers and will not be hired.

IshKebab2• 4 years ago

I suspect that isn't why you weren't hired.

chockchocschoir2• 4 years ago

Despite all of this my biggest learning about performance is that mentioning performance during job interviews shows that you are incompatible with other JavaScript developers and will not be hired.

As someone who done plenty of JS, cares about performance and also has handled hiring for JS positions in the past, I can tell you that this is generally not true. Caring about performance is not a reason to not get hired.

But it is possible to be "technically superior" in every conceivable way, but still not be a good hire. Why? Because the candidate might be missing vital soft skills or even not be very good at describing their thoughts, something that can slow down an entire team.

"Learning the wrong lesson" when things go wrong would also be something I'd consider high up for reasons to reject a candidate.

fluoridation2• 4 years ago

I could demonstrate that JavaScript tool can execute file system search much faster than the OS

What do you mean? How do you search the file system without calling into the OS?

gavinray• 4 years ago

  > "I was recently interviewing with a search engine company, one of the big ones, where I could demonstrate that JavaScript tool can execute file system search much faster than the OS and produce better results. They seemed really impressed."

How is this possible? OS should be using direct syscalls, any additional code you write should be pure overhead in theory, right?

eyelidlessness2• 4 years ago

I’m glad perf is still a focus for the Chrome team. That said…

We know that benchmarks are just one of many ways of measuring the speed of a browser.

This is very true, and with a few notable exceptions my experience is that Safari feels faster across the board even where it has consistently benched slower. This likely has less to do with runtime performance and more to do with process isolation models. I feel confident about that because Safari tends to be more liberal with spawning new processes, and that’s where I experience its pathological edge cases.

(Chrome starts to pool processes by domain sooner than Safari, which puts less pressure on the OS but more on operations within a given domain; Safari creates processes per tab more consistently but ultimately degrades overall app performance and eventually system performance too.)

saagarjha3• 4 years ago

Can you explain why the process isolation model would matter here? It seems at best uncorrelated and my experience has been that aggressive process pooling improves, rather than degrades, system performance.

eyelidlessness2• 4 years ago

Chrome's pooling model seems to improve system performance as you say (and as I was trying to express), at high pressure. Safari’s model seems to optimize for low system pressure by favoring spawning more processes. Individually they perform better, but overall it degrades as process count increases.

bardan• 4 years ago

Harvesting my data at unprecedented speeds.

encryptluks22• 4 years ago

Unfortunately, doesn't really matter what browser you use. The JS APIs to harvest data are part of all major browsers now.

dotancohen• 4 years ago

To which API are you referring? Mozilla, so far as I know, tries to protect the user.

robbrown451• 4 years ago

Am I so wrong to stop reading after a grammatical error on the very first word in the article?

https://www.google.com/search?q=everyday+two+words+or+one

staticassertion• 4 years ago

Yes

jansan2• 4 years ago

You couldn't be wronger.

bool3max• 4 years ago

Yes you are?

ksec3• 4 years ago

Off Topic: Chrome is likely a very good benchmark for comparing between Intel x86 chip and Apple M1. Where Google spend enough time to optimise on both platform.

I wonder if they could work on Memory usage next.

Compared to Safari, getting jank from Address bar, bookmark, history, show all tabs, SafariBookMarkSyncAgent is leaking memory. It seems every release Safari added more features and bug fix for compatibility while performance has been in steady decline.

vincentriemer• 4 years ago

In the case of the MotionMark benchmark (more graphics/rendering focused), I have Safari beating Chrome's score by more than double (2703 vs 1152) on my M1 Max machine. Now I don't think Safari is 2x as fast as Chrome per se but it does explain how these speedometer tests can be so "close" yet Safari still feels faster.

EDIT: Firefox gets a 1336

freediver• 4 years ago

Congrats to Chrome team, this is impressive.

azinman2• 4 years ago

Be curious to try Chrome again, but for a long time it’s felt bloated and slow. Been very happy with Safari, and particularly love the 2FA integration.

My biggest gripe is the lack of shared bookmarks and passwords between browsers. There are 3rd party extensions and what not to do some of this (eg 1password), but nothing beats the UX of true browser integration. I wish there was a single standard with pluggable backends so I had no switching costs. Quite frankly I’m surprised Firefox doesn’t just use the Mac keychain and share bookmarks with Safari in order to gain market share.

aaronbrethorst• 4 years ago

Cool to hear that Chrome is faster than Safari, but that's not why I'm going to stick with Safari.

I use Safari because of Chrome's memory bloat, Safari's text message MFA auto-fill features, and Safari's cross-platform (iOS/macOS) password manager.

codewiz• 4 years ago

Not sure whether it is allowed to work on iOS, but Chrome also has cross-platform sync of passwords, tabs, history and other settings.

msh• 4 years ago

It does work on iOS. It can do system wide password management.

fartcannon• 4 years ago

Also Chrome is the worst, most pervasive spyware ever developed.

ulimn• 4 years ago

Also, I think it's the only browser with Apple Pay on macOS.

throw_m239339• 4 years ago

I use Safari because of Chrome's memory bloat, Safari's text message MFA auto-fill features, and Safari's cross-platform (iOS/macOS) password manager.

What do you think of Firefox? :)

dt2m• 4 years ago

Not OP but I have exclusively used Safari since the first version and recently switched to Firefox, and the password manager not being able to use iCloud Keychain is really a major bummer.

For such a long time Firefox didn't take being a native Mac OS citizen seriously, with scrolling not being natively implemented, form fields feeling "off" and in general just feeling like a Windows app in a Cocoa window.

Luckily those days are long gone now, and Firefox now feels much more like a native app, save for a couple of dialog boxes here and there. But having used iCloud Keychain for such a long time, and there being no option to import my 500+ passwords, it really has been a pain in the ass to switch browsers.

Cthulhu_• 4 years ago

I'd probably use Safari more if it wasn't for me being used to Chrome's dev tools. Safari is a lot less resource hungry, artificial benchmarks aside.

spullara• 4 years ago

The Chromium blog shouldn't refer to Chrome. There are many browsers based on Chromium and all would have the benefit from any changes to the core. If this is really just Chrome only then what is it doing on this blog in the first place?

CyberRabbi2• 4 years ago

IMO Chrome desperately needs to minimize its memory usage.

dopa42365• 4 years ago

Memory is like $3-4/GB (decently fast DDR4). And you've been fine with 16GB for a decade without upgrading.

If you're stuck on some un-upgradable old budget device, it's unlikely the memory holding you back either.

swah• 4 years ago

OTOH - new, entry level Macbook M1s come with 8Gb RAM. Those are the ones I could afford (= full monthly salary) but I'm reluctant to buy because of Chrome.

CyberRabbi2• 4 years ago

Chrome with only about a dozen tabs open can take up to 16GB of memory. There is no defense for this. It only gets worse as time goes on and as more tabs are opened.

I have 64GB of memory total and about 16-32 of it is in use for virtual machines, which is reasonable.

How much total memory do you expect the average computer to have?

Traster• 4 years ago

I'm a little confused as to what the actual milestone is here? "We got 13% faster vs our last build" is just... well.. every day. I thought there was going to be some specific metric that they beat. It's good that browsers get faster at specific benchmarks, but what we basically always see is that the web gets more complex whilst browsers get faster (this is just an extension of the effect where software gets more complex as hardware gets faster and therefore the software you're using at any given time basically stays the same speed).

However, and I think this is important to bring up, browsers are basically the same speed and the reason to use one over the other is largely down to ergonomics and larger concerns. On the "larger concerns" side, Chrome is a failure. Chrome exists so the advertising company Google can track you and sell you targetted ads. It can do this in reasonable ways and it can do this in unreasonable ways, and with attacks on privacy like FLoC. Chrome is doing exactly what Internet Explorer was doing for microsoft in the 2000s and I think it's appropriate to call out that fact.

austincheney7• 4 years ago

It’s more subtle and monumental than that. Before this JS was already executing at the same speed as Java except for in arithmetic. At this rate of improvement eventually JS will execute much faster than Java in all areas except arithmetic where it will achieve near parity.

I am not seeing any other programming language continuously improve their execution speed this much.

codedokode3• 4 years ago

I think that browser developers are optimizing the wrong thing. Specifically: they optimize for execution speed while they better optimize for minimum memory usage instead. Let me explain why this is more important.

Let's say I am visiting a properly made website and it takes 10% of CPU to render. Even if browser devs make their browser twice faster, it will only save 5% of CPU time - and that would be completely unnoticeable. You might ask, what about modern websites, built with D*t compiled to webassembly, GPU acceleration, reactive frameworks, material design and capable to load the multi-core CPU at 100%? I am not using such sites so I don't care.

Now let's look at memory usage. Optimizing for speed usually causes increased memory consumption, and this increases the chance of invoking swapping. If the system starts swapping, it becomes orders of magnitude slower. No speed optimizations will matter in this case.

Therefore if you are targeting wide audience, and not only mac users, then you should be optimizing for memory usage. If the browser could use two times less memory while using twice amount of CPU time that would be perfect. Just think how many laptops with 2 or 4 Gb of RAM would become usable again.

wwtrv• 4 years ago

The laptops with 2 or 4 Gb of RAM (e.g. Chromebooks) are also likely to have Celeron or MediaTek CPUs which might struggle much more than that, also unless you have multiple tabs open 4GB of RAM might not be that bad.

And given a choice between being able to open several tabs all of which are barely functional and being stuck on a single website at at time which runs smoothly I'd definitely choose the later (of course the tradeoff is probably not as straightforward, then again it's not completely obvious to me that optimizing for speed would necessarily result in higher memory consumption).

IMO even if they are optimizing for Macs, I'm not sure this approach would make sense (assuming the tradeoff between CPU performance and RAM usage exists) since they are much more likely to have less memory and better CPUs than PC laptops (e.g. you can probably easily get a Windows laptops with 32GB for $1000 or less).

omnimike• 4 years ago

The reason for the focus on CPU time is that it has the larger impact on battery life.

tasn• 4 years ago

You'd be surprised (I was), but high memory usage is also a power drain.

ggreg842• 4 years ago

Optimizing for speed usually causes increased memory consumption,

Lol, no?

If your benchmark is memory bound, reducing memory usage is probably the simplest way to make it faster.

rat9988• 4 years ago

He is right though. Chrome isn't memory bound... yet.

viraptor• 4 years ago

There are some truly memory-bound problems, but I believe the parent comment is correct on average. A lot of common speed issues can be helped by: adding a cache, adding an extra lookup index, memoising calculated values, adding a new denormalised data projection, etc. I think "usually" was a fair description.

oxplot• 4 years ago

If you improve CPU performance, you can compress memory with the leftover cycles. This is what I do on my RPi which allows me to run quite a few memory hungry processes at the cost of some CPU (which is fine, because those processes are mostly idle).

KMag• 4 years ago

... and some of us disable swap to prolong laptop-motherboard-soldered-SSD lifetime, and Windows 10 regularly bluescreens when memory is exhausted and swap is disabled.

bscphil• 4 years ago

You might ask, what about modern websites, built with D*t compiled to webassembly, GPU acceleration, reactive frameworks, material design and capable to load the multi-core CPU at 100%? I am not using such sites so I don't care.

Does this just mean that browser developers are optimizing for the right thing, just not something that benefits you? Tons of people use these sites.

If the system starts swapping, it becomes orders of magnitude slower.

Not really. Browsers try to keep stuff in swap that they probably won't need. Swapping doesn't become a problem until you're almost out of memory as well, and then you might get thrashing. But there's a wide range where CPU optimizations make sense. And such a large fraction of people have SSDs that even swap access can be pretty fast.

_Algernon_3• 4 years ago

I disagree. Memory is cheap. Battery life isn't.

aurora72• 4 years ago

High memory consumption eats battery life too

codedokode3• 4 years ago

You cannot install "cheap" memory into older laptops. Battery life doesn't matter for laptops as they are mostly used at home.

yrro3• 4 years ago

I have two identical laptops, one with 8 GiB and the other with 32 GiB of RAM.

The former lasts over 2 weeks in S3, the latter not even a week.

ChuckNorris89• 4 years ago

DDR5 prices would disagree with you.

Plus, most laptop manufacturers rip you off for every RAM spec bump. $400 - $500 to go from 16GB to 32GB?! They can f--k right off!

Not everyone is making six figure SV salaries to not flinch at these prices. That's why I love the framework laptop.

DeadAndHorny• 4 years ago

Actually memory isn't that much cheap, at least not in a third world country. As browsers are going to be used by everyone, memory optimization is necessary.

franga2000• 4 years ago

Well all know what the "solution" here is: to have multiple browser vendors, each optimising for something else. Imagine having a lightweight browser ran a bit slower but could run on a potato with 512MB or RAM. Or one that optimises for viewing static documents (you know - websites) and so uses barely any CPU when idle, but might not support all the crazy JS features.

Of course, having turned browsers into virtual machines, there isn't much specialisation that can be done without breaking things. Might it be time to create a subset of features that sites could limit themselves to and allow browsers to use a simpler and faster render pipeline? You know, like what we thought AMP was going to be before it turned out to have Google's monopolistic shit smeared all over it.

alyandon• 4 years ago

  Of course, having turned browsers into virtual machines

I really wish browsers would take that one extra step and utilize their intimate knowledge of what memory allocations belong to which sites that are actually active and implement paging to disk instead of gobbling up ram like it is a infinite resource and expecting the general purpose OS to figure it all out.

zild3d• 4 years ago

I think that browser developers are optimizing the wrong thing.
You might ask, what about modern websites [...] I am not using such sites so I don't care.

They might be optimizing the wrong thing for you, but the majority do use "modern sites"

ksec3• 4 years ago

There are over 3B devices using Chrome as browser. 2.5B of them are either on Laptop, Smartphone or Tablet. Average Opened Tabs is still under 5.

As much as I want them to optimise for memory usage. Taking less CPU time for rendering is extremely important for battery.

Not to mention faster site is noticeable. And that is what sells. Chrome was faster than everything else when it launched. ( May be apart from Opera )

dwiel2• 4 years ago

How do you know that isn't just measuring that most people keep to 5 tabs because otherwise everything grind to a halt. That's about how many tabs my wife's old Chromebook can handle before she has to start closing old tabs.

yc4joe• 4 years ago

I agree 100% -- and, as a front-end developer for more than half the time I've been writing code for web applications since 1995, I think my opinion should matter. I've seen the trends and can relate to exactly this point. Well-stated and, frankly, late to the public eye (but, that's my fault since I should've written something similar years ago).

jollybean• 4 years ago

They optimised mostly for startup time, not execution speed.

Java for example uses runtime VM information before it starts compiling classes to machine code. That means it's faster in the long run, but requires a 'warm up time'. Obviously a bit better for server side.

jeffbee2• 4 years ago

Man, that math did not make any sense at all. A program can't use 10% of the CPU. It either uses the CPU or it doesn't. If a page renders with "5% CPU" measured over some interval that means it rendered twice as quickly, which is a substantial improvement.

YetAnotherNick• 4 years ago

Use tabsuspender for that. It saves memory by suspending the tabs which is not used for quite some time.

morelisp• 4 years ago

Oh goodie, more headroom for inducing advertiser demands.

emrex• 4 years ago

Why is it chrome specifically on chromium blog ? Does this not mean chromium and chromium based browsers also ?

jefftk• 4 years ago

As far as I can tell, none of these changes are in code that is specific to Chrome, so yes, I would expect these improvements to also apply to Chromium-based browsers.

nathias2• 4 years ago

Lighthouse now deducts best practices score if you don't show adds, truly a milestone.

justshowpost• 4 years ago

Source?

nathias2• 4 years ago

just run lighthouse on any website without adds

jansan2• 4 years ago

V8 is an absolute marvel of engineering. The performance gains are very impressive.

But Chrome still has some work to do on rendering performance. The switch to hardware acceleration was actually a deceleration for quite a few cases. For example rendering very large concave SVG paths is probably 10x faster on Firefox compared to Chrome. I hope to see some effort in future to improve this, too.

kinix• 4 years ago

"Nothing is more frustrating than having a slow experience while browsing the web"

^ I stopped reading at this point, because I realised that this is something that only someone on a marketing team would write. A perfect combination of incorrect and disingenuous.

mda2• 4 years ago

Why? I find slow and janky websites insufferable.

laszlokorte• 4 years ago

Having an account banned and not being able to restore it or having to watch countless of ads slowing down my computer or not searching what I am looking for because of new ranking algorithms seems worse that a little bit of loading time :)

Andrew_nenakhov• 4 years ago

Nice try, Chrome, but I'll stay on Firefox.

bambax• 4 years ago

Nothing is more frustrating than having a slow experience while browsing the web.

Really?

I think many people "around the world" have more pressing issues than saving a couple of milliseconds while "shopping for a new pair of headphones".

Especially when everyone knows the real speed bump across all browsers, devices and OSes is to aggressively filter out ads, something Chrome is actively fighting with Manifest V3.

criddell• 4 years ago

It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the Chrome group how they deal with this conflict of interest.

throwaway47292• 4 years ago

I have a friend who says: "when you invent more efficient lightbulbs, people do not consume less energy, they just get more light"

Every time we did a milestone performance improvement in our infrastructure, e.g. search used to take few seconds, we reduced it to few milliseconds. One year later our colleagues were doing machinegun-like queries and the search was back to take 1 second, and it is just a matter of time to go back to few seconds.

One thing that helped a lot was hard limits, e.g. InternetExplorer9 having hard cap on css size was literally the only thing that forced people not to push megabytes of css.

I wish Chrome does something similar, like 'you cant have more than 500kb of js code evaluated per page' or 'no more than 200kb css', it will do miracles in just one year, and I am willing to bet that we will have the same features we would without the limit.

EDIT: I did not mean to undervalue Chrome's 49% improvement in one year, which is just extraordinary work!

lelandfe• 4 years ago

Relevantly, here's the HTTP Archive's chart of page weights over time: https://httparchive.org/reports/page-weight#bytesTotal

The median is around 2MB, up from 1.5MB 5 years ago.

cuteboy19• 4 years ago

Does it include multimedia content or page itself

stocknoob• 4 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

shadyfroyo• 4 years ago

Chrome needs to fix the Mac Keystone WindowServer lag issue:

Details here: Chromeisbad.com

Keystone globally slows down UI and drains battery life, especially notable on older machines. Completely uninstalling chrome felt like upgrading to a new CPU on my 2013 MacBook.

pbw• 4 years ago

Nothing is more frustrating than having a slow experience while browsing the web.

This seems a bit tone deaf with a war going on?

debesyla• 4 years ago

I'm not sure...

1) "while browsing the web", not "in life";

2) This is an article about a web browser and the article isn't trying to compare browsers to real life scenarios, let alone wars...

gibspaulding• 4 years ago

Does anyone else find that they can't ever tell a difference in browser speed in day to day use?

I switched to FireFox for my personal use a few years before the "Quanutm" update when it was theoretically much worse than Chrome and didn't notice a difference. For the last few years, I've been using Chrome and FireFox side by side with Chrome for work and FireFox for my own stuff and switching back and forth feels pretty seamless. (With the exception of Gmail which is abysmal on FireFox, but I somehow doubt that's Mozilla's fault)

onionisafruit• 4 years ago

Chrome feels a little faster to me, but I stick with Firefox because it doesn’t give me the same creepy big brother feeling as chrome and I can spare a few milliseconds per page load.

Come to think of it, I primarily use chrome to double check UI changes on a page served from my local computer. That’s probably the main reason it feels faster.

jeffbee2• 4 years ago

I think the takeaway from this article is that LTO is very difficult to use, if a company with dozens of full-time language platform engineers was not able to use it until the project's 15th year.

The_rationalist• 4 years ago

Why is it so difficut to find the average page load time for the most popular websites AKA wpt6 ?? Enough of those asbtract synthetic benchmarks..

A new speed milestone for Chrome

Related Stories