Chrome 59

>Chrome 59
>Firefox 57 (MUH QUANTUM)
Nice performance, nerds.

Do you think this has anything to do with Firefox 57's brand new hard dependency on rustc and cargo?

Other urls found in this thread:

mozilla.github.io/arewefastyet-speedometer/2.0//
youtube.com/html5
userstyles.org/styles/135593/firefox-edge-light-dark
userstyles.org/styles/83431/minimal-floating-scrollbars-for-firefox-windows
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Can confirm. tested with a i5-2540m
But I was using no addons in Chromium, however I doubt it would make that much of a difference

I'm brain-dead, is lower better or what?

Speedometer tests DOM manipulation speed
Firefox is still ~50% slower than Chrom*

Is a higher number better or worse, and which window is which? Retards

My quantum is still much faster than your chrome

weird, because in real world usage I cant notice a difference in speed between the 2.

>Window on right says Mozilla Firefox
>Leaving the only other choice as chrome on the left
>"Are less DOM manipulations per minute better?"
I am sorry, but you are retarded here.

I agree, I still am going to use Firefox because of goolag

kek Safari beats both

chrome left quantum right
Idk what this means

wtf i just was fooled by all the marketing and started to use firefox. Wtf m8 (inb4 jewgle idfc)

>All these retards itt posting benches without mentioning the hardware they are using
That is going to make a large difference in how fast your web browser performs DOM shit

reran the Firefox test with addon's turned off. As i suspected it is only a very small hit to performance
again this was with a i5-2540m

...

Pointless, chrome is fucking botnet and you should not use it no matter what.

>Sorosfox is still shit browser
more news at 11

Good hardware is not magically going to change one shitty software faster than other shitty software.

Really feels like the software written nowadays is just a piece of slow bloat, goes for both Chrome and FF

Yeah, but posting something like or and claiming that X is faster without
knowing the CPU used make these benches worthless as opposed to a side by side comparison on the same hardware

but it is also looking like Chrom* is still faster on the same hardware anyways.

A challenger appears...

mentally challenged

Huh neat.
This is the dev version of firefox.
>i7-6700HQ clocked at 1.2 Ghz
>32 gb's of ram.
>SSD

Considering youtube is somewhat CPU intensive and I was running a few games in the background the result is kinda nice.

Firefox is SJWs garbage

Mobile Safari
iOS 11.2 Beta 3
iPhone 5S

>Do you think this has anything to do with Firefox 57's brand new hard dependency on rustc and cargo?
It's the other way around, the rust parts are the fastest. There's very little rust compared to C/C++ code tho.

>1.2 GHz
What in hell...

>speedometer 1.0
Try again
mozilla.github.io/arewefastyet-speedometer/2.0//

Uses more ram and more cpu, can't make this shit up

>can't even see what tabs he has open because devs can't implement basic tab organization

KEK

>Thinking benchmarks matter in any capacity

It's underclocked on pourpose.
I'd like to save some battery.

...

My PC is pretty old and I'm still the fastest
get gud fgts

The results are the same. Firefox does feel just as responsive though.

I7 7700k @ 4.7 ghz,16gb ram @ 3000mhz with an NVME disk btw.

The fuck is this
Compared to my test

But I still use and will use FF or its forks until any Chrome has some kind of customization.
I have to look at it all the time, so I need and want a nice to look at browser, and if I don't like the default, then I'll change its appearance

Hahahaha. SJWs BTFO

Here are my results for speedometer 2.0 and memory usage, default fresh profiles no addons.

What the, that's odd, My hardware is similar see my result.
7700K Stock @ 4.5Ghz, 16GB RAM @ 3000Mhz, 850 Pro SSD.

I used version 2, not 1 like you. Check the post i was responding to.

Who actually cares that X benchmark is Y% faster? What about useability?

Pretty much a flawed bench, the results are so random that it doesn't matter what hw you use

Actually this
I got 134 first then 58, the benchmark makes no sense

Maybe one has a faster internet speed than the other?

Well, benched both

i7 5775C @ 4.1ghz
16gb ram @ 2200mhz
960 Evo 250gb

What are those with under 100 score?

I think this could be the cause, which makes this bench even more irrelevant.

Try speedometer 2.0 and post results

Can some one test in vimeo opposed to YouTube? Because YouTube probably has optimisations for chrome clients

>our new epic browser uses 30% less memory than chrome

Test what exactly?

...

oddly now it tips to firefox's favour

what is going on?

ungoogled chromium exists and is open source

Ok.
It can't be trusted.

I have a shitty pc i dont know why i got this high

try speedometer 2.0.

Am I the only one whos YouTube videos keep stuttering every 7 seconds or so using quantum? While everything seems to load a bit faster, the videos lag a bit even when they are loaded.

What's your internet speed? Also link to the exact video giving you the stuttering and I'll test.

nice style, what is it called?

It's using your computer to mine bitcoins, and the longer it can keep you on the site (by going back and forth as to which is better, thereby keeping you watching to see if it will change again), the more mining they can get from you.

Mozilla literally forked SpeeDOMeter so it would give their browser better results and then wrote a bunch of marketing copy citing THEIR fork of the benchmark.

What did I expect from a bunch of adult children who are literally LITERALLY dressed up in fox footy pajamas RIGHT NOW to celebrate the release of quantum.

At this point It wouldn't surprise me...

Actuallly I just updater flash on the add-ons page and restarted the browser twice seems to be working fine. Thanks anyway

So tell me, how do i get my windows look like yours..

>using flash in 2017
Why aren't you using HTML5?
youtube.com/html5

It's the Tommorow style, literally bottom right corner "Style".

go back to pol retard

Brave vs Fireshit

WHAT

try speedometer 2.0 to see if this user is right

He isn't. Will post my results in a few minutes.

userstyles.org/styles/135593/firefox-edge-light-dark
Go at that advanced settings below and choose the dark one.
And userstyles.org/styles/83431/minimal-floating-scrollbars-for-firefox-windows for bars.

Testet Quantum with one tab no extensions
On Win10

i7 6700k
16gbram
1080ti
Sata SSD

as Info when I took this test with Chrome and 10 tabs open and 3+ extensions I got over 180

Fireshit confirmed

Not on LTSB.

I don't think LTSB has as many options.

Not until 2019. Just wait one and a half year.
There are some forks out there for sure, but I don't feel like editing Windows files like back in XP/7.

>plum light
My nigger.

On Speedometer 2.0 with Brave I got 81 pts and with Firefox 67 pts

>Sup Forumstard is too illiterate to read beyond headlines so they believe shit like this

no surprise there. go back to your containment board

Just use WinLite10 on a FCU Enterprise ISO.

here. firefox still performs worse than chromium and iridium. and firefox 57 did NOT get a 2x performance boost compared to 56. although I didn't test 56 on speedometer 2.0 I assume it would have a similar relative performance.
Iridium confirmed for being the fastest non-botnet browser.

but, the difference between firefox and chromium seems to be lower on speedometer 2.0.

Tested on a toaster laptop, but my PC had similarly relative performance so the test accurately presents performance difference between Firefox and chromium. The results are identical with uBlock origin turned on.

That's the kind of tweaks I don't like to do anymore. Using Classic Shell is more than enough. I also tried once to install a custom theme, but shit went wrong, it looks like sometimes works and sometimes fucks you up (it worked on my laptop, but not in my desktop).

>muh useless benchmarks
Who cares?

>firefox 57 did NOT get a 2x performance boost compared to 56
That was not the claim. It's 2x compared to "6 months ago"