Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new speed milestone for Chrome

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#101

Post by austincheney »

fluoridation wrote: post #100
austincheney wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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?

A micro service to a localhost node application. There is a file system API in the browser now but it isn’t mature and is highly restricted compared to the terminal.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#102

Post by bambax »

> 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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#103

Post by laszlokorte »

mda wrote: post #90
kinix wrote: post #86

"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.

Why? I find slow and janky websites insufferable.

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 :)

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#104

Post by fluoridation »

austincheney wrote: post #101
fluoridation wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

A micro service to a localhost node application. There is a file system API in the browser now but it isn’t mature and is highly restricted compared to the terminal.

??? So JIT code + IPC + more JIT code + native code + kernel code is faster than native code + kernel code? How does that work?

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#105

Post by throwaway47292 »

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!

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#106

Post by codedokode »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #84
codedokode wrote: post #62

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 unn…

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

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

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#107

Post by shadyfroyo »

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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#108

Post by tehbeard »

tasn wrote: post #93
omnimike wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

So is the screen, keyboard, WiFi/ethernet adapter...

Do you have any graphs/charts/tables to substantiate the claim that high memory usage is power hungry enough to be optimized for vs CPU?

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#110

Post by yrro »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #84
codedokode wrote: post #62

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 unn…

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

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.

Post reply on HN