A new speed milestone for Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#121

Post by jollybean » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 1:51 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#122

Post by ChuckNorris89 » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 1:52 PM UTC

_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.

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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#123

Post by ksec » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 1:52 PM UTC

dwiel wrote: post #118

ksec wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 )

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.

I am assuming it grind to a halt because it is CPU bound and not Memory bound? In that case the premises of CPU optimisations are not important would be, inaccurate?

In reality it is complicated when we have extra CPU cycle to burn developers tends to put fancy new things. Which is basically what andy giveth bill taketh away.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#124

Post by ihateolives » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:03 PM UTC

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #122

_Algernon_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> $400 to go from 16GB to 32GB?! They can f--k right off!

That'd be 90-150€ for upgrading average Thinkpad for me, depending on starting configuration.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#125

Post by ihateolives » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:04 PM UTC

yrro wrote: post #110

_Algernon_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Identical as in model, hw and configrations except memory?

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#126

Post by alyandon » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #94

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…

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 m…

  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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#127

Post by _Algernon_ » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:13 PM UTC

ihateolives wrote: post #125

yrro wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Identical as in model, hw and configrations except memory?

Don't forget age. Battery age is gonna have much more of an effect than subtle hw configuration differences.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#128

Post by selectodude » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

daemoens wrote: post #15

selectodude wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you know why you're Mac getting low results? Other users are getting 200+

I'm sure it has something to do with using ad blockers and other extensions. I don't use Firefox for its cutting edge speed so I didn't really think too much of it.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#129

Post by criddell » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #102

> 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.

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

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#130

Post by gibspaulding » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

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)