Firefox 70 Linux Performance, Firefox 70 vs. Chrome 78 Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Firefox 70 Linux Performance, Firefox 70 vs. Chrome 78 Benchmarks

With the new releases of Mozilla Firefox 70 and Google Chrome 78 here are fresh benchmarks of these web browsers with testing under Ubuntu Linux. Additionally, on the Firefox side looking at the performance with WebRender and compared to prior releases.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28397

[Mario Junior]

Chrome wins again? Nothing new on the front.

[Hibbelharry]

The fun part: The measured difference can't be seen on most websites. These benchmarks are all quite synthetic and Firefox does not perform as worse as you might guess when seeing just those diagrams.

[teresaejunior]

The fun part: The measured difference can't be seen on most websites. These benchmarks are all quite synthetic and Firefox does not perform as worse as you might guess when seeing just those diagrams.

I have always noticed Firefox as much slower than Chromium, no matter how many times I tried it over the last few years.

[skeevy420]

The fun part: The measured difference can't be seen on most websites. These benchmarks are all quite synthetic and Firefox does not perform as worse as you might guess when seeing just those diagrams.

IMHO, there really isn't a difference between the two outside of the occasional site behaving badly in one and not the other. Granted, I'm a bit biased there due to running script blockers and how those break half the internet regardless of what browser I'm using.

It's plain-text with some pictures...I don't feel the need to run 37 Facebook, 14 Twitter, 89 Google, and 391 random scripts every damn page I go to nor do I even understand why it's necessary for 90% of websites out there outside of someone trying to scam me or steal my information or some other nefarious reason.

[skeevy420]

I have always noticed Firefox as much slower than Chromium, no matter how many times I tried it over the last few years.

Once you load them up with ad-blockers, script blockers, https redirectors, Ghostery, Privacy Badger, etc...they're both equally slow...

Michael

Have you ever ran any benchmarks with privacy plugins enabled? I just very seriously doubt that very many people run browsers without privacy plugins...at least not your readers. Would that even able to be benchmarked in a fair and balanced manner?

[Ronshere]

Once you load them up with ad-blockers, script blockers, https redirectors, Ghostery, Privacy Badger, etc...they're both equally slow...

That's a very good point. Addons are the great equalizer for browser performance.

[grigi]

The big feature of Firefox 70 was faster JS compile/load times. And It noticeably feels snappier as a result. We still mostly load new pages, as single page apps are declining in "coolness" before becoming the defacto due to the insane complexity they bring.

[tildearrow]

Typos:

well ad Firefox 68.0.2 since that is the current Extnded Support Release (ESR).

[JMB9]

I don't think that the measured differences can be seen by users or can give a feedback about response times etc.
Maybe they say something about code quality in special aspects ...

I use predominantly Firefox ... even though it got extremely worse when people were happy about speed improvements - which I never saw, and the time needed to get it on Ubuntu (still on 69.0.2 ... holding the line) - in former times it was hours, current mean would be about 2.5 days.
But additionally I use Chrome - for cases Firefox has problems and to check web presentation with both main browsers.
But the UI change of FF was ugly {using Chrome design for Smartphones only}, the removal of the useful addons, web developers can not automatically check the quality of web codes.
Somehow I kept the better SAA (yes, from IBM in 1987 - still rules) menu and have not to go via those vertical aligned three lines (or dots in Chrome) with a waste basket were everything is thrown in - like a child cleaning its room.
But concerning what a browser should do: displaying content correctly, both browsers fail.

Codecs are miserable, PDFs can not be displayed correctly, both have sites they just don't work with (e.g. on the MSI motherboard site I was unable to select the second menu point - working with Chrome only), many sites having different alignment problems, not even Unicodes are displayed correctly.
And I really want to know why the browsers seem to rely on OS installed fonts - thus having absolute different displaying results when used on older Linux distros. Webmasters seem to be forced to use special fonts to try fixing the problem, but concerning Google fonts that's not allowed in Europe as that is used for tracking and must be presented to visitors before they can be tracked.
And a browser should yield the same result when at same version - there should be no OS effects in displaying content (Fonts, Unicode/Emoji, Images, PDFs, Videos ...).
If HW accelaration is used, I would understand differences in speed (and little quality effects, too) - but this would be about video material only. But due to fonts?

So this all is really strange - so both browsers are on top concerning `quality' - but this doesn't say a lot today.
It's not about speed - I don't have problems on 10 year old machines with 183 tabs currently open with FF.
But not being able to seeing PDFs correctly - always needing to download and to display it with a real program - not seeing Unicodes/Emojis correctly (on Ubuntu Linux 18.04 or 19.04 Chrome is extremely lacking compared to Firefox) and really bad video experience is not nice.
This seems typically of no big importance concerning number of comments ... from speed of browsers, both are OK - displaying quality - both have their weak spots - without changing anything for good concerning several versions ... I got even tired to look at this never changing misery ... but I keep doing it to know when to use Unicodes being released on June 5, 2018!
Webmastering wasn't more difficult end of the 90-ies ...