11–20 of 136 posts
On mobile, with slower networks and much worse CPUs, uBlock often completely changes the experience. (thanks Mozilla!)
I would note though that only example.com was examined (and apple.com in one test).
I also did not see information if tests were repeated, as no variance/stddev is given. I'd expect it to be pretty high.
DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials reduces the CPU time of the article page from 31s to just 1.6s. All other tested extensions also bring CPU time down to at most 10s.
It seems the single most important thing regarding Real Word Performance is a good content blocking functionality (not to mention other boons). Why don't browsers come with one by default?
All the tests were done on an n2-standard-2 gcp instance... That doesn't have a GPU. Rendering a webpage without a GPU uses a lot of different codepaths and isn't awfully representative of performance with a GPU.
Looking at on-page CPU time for Evernote, 91% is spent just processing JavaScript or HTML. So I expect any benefit of a GPU to be minimal.
> a website allowlist Ridiculous. It's even called whitelist in the code snippet.
Most ad blockers work by blocking certain network requests that are initiated by the page. DDG Privacy Essentials reduces the number of network requests by 95% and the download weight by 80%. DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials reduces the CPU time of the article page from 31s to just 1.6s. All other tested extensions also bring CPU time down to at most 10s. It seems the single most important thing regarding Real Word Perf…
I've seen ublock causing CPU to be pegged at 100% making various js heavy applications completely unusable. https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/issues/1829
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you read the graph right. Without ad-blocking extensions, the browser is of course much slower, about 15 times slower according to their tests.
I am doubtful of some of the numbers here... I mean I know browsing the web without an ad blocker is bad, but it isn't 'takes 35 seconds to load an article on gigabit ethernet' bad....
Most ad blockers work by blocking certain network requests that are initiated by the page. DDG Privacy Essentials reduces the number of network requests by 95% and the download weight by 80%. DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials reduces the CPU time of the article page from 31s to just 1.6s. All other tested extensions also bring CPU time down to at most 10s. It seems the single most important thing regarding Real Word Perf…
Because the most popular browser is made by a company that makes the vast majority of their money from ads.
This is a worthy research topic. On mobile, with slower networks and much worse CPUs, uBlock often completely changes the experience. (thanks Mozilla!) I would note though that only example.com was examined (and apple.com in one test). I also did not see information if tests were repeated, as no variance/stddev is given. I'd expect it to be pretty high.
I ran tests on example.com, apple.com, and a WCPO news article (for the ad blocker tests).
The biggest performance issue is that extensions just dump large scripts into pages indiscriminately. Most of the time extensions don't do anything differently based on the content of the page.
I also tested a WCPO news article to see the impact of ad blockers. I picked a local news website specifically because they contain a lot of ads. If a page doesn't have any ads the performance impact of an ad blocker will be slightly negative.
What my tests don't pick up is extensions that only run a certain domains. For example, if you run Honey on a shop they support I expect the CPU consumption to increase a lot more.
I wrote a similar article last year, which tests a few other pages as well: https://www.debugbear.com/blog/measuring-the-performance-imp...