Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
blog.getbatterybox.com
Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#2I found this title misleading. I thought this would be an article about how much power is consumed by the browsers of visitors to popular sites, e.g. the energy footprint of one day of Reddit's users based on the length of time of the average daily visit and how much battery each of the major browsers consumes in that time or something.
What it's actually about is how much power is consumed by different browsers using popular websites on one machine. That isn't actually as interesting as I'd hoped.
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#3I found this title misleading. I thought this would be an article about how much power is consumed by the browsers of visitors to popular sites, e.g. the energy footprint of one day of Reddit's users based on the length of time of the average daily visit and how much battery each of the major browsers consumes in that time or something. What it's actually about is how much power is consumed by different browsers usin…
Really? I think it's well known that Chrome isn't nearly as efficient as Safari but I'm amazed just how big the difference between some websites is. Some sites are worse on all browsers, but I wasn't expecting the effect to be by hours.
So you look a site like Mashable and with Safari you're getting 1/3 the battery life of Cult of Mac. That's crazy.
But then on a few sites things are really nuts. What is going on with Forbes where Chrome's battery life is 50% what Firefox and Safari get? Something is going on there.
This was neat to see.
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#4I wonder how using ublock and umatrix affect battery life.
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#5This confirms my unquantified observations. I use Chrome only when I have to — for ClojureScript development, because the developer tools are better.
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#6I found this title misleading. I thought this would be an article about how much power is consumed by the browsers of visitors to popular sites, e.g. the energy footprint of one day of Reddit's users based on the length of time of the average daily visit and how much battery each of the major browsers consumes in that time or something. What it's actually about is how much power is consumed by different browsers usin…
[deleted]
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#7The title thing is funny, if you look at the URL it's a more accurate title.
Power consumption of the worlds most popular websites calculated on different browsers – Chrome vs Safari vs Firefox
vs
http://blog.getbatterybox.com/which-browser-is-the-most-ener...
__
Title aside, very interesting article I'd like to see what factors play into these huge disparities of battery life loss between the different browsers.
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#8Note that these tests were conducted on a MacBook – presumably running OS X. Apple invested a lot of time optimizing Safari and OS X for low power usage, so it's not exactly surprising that Safari wins in most cases. It would be very interesting the see a comparison with Windows and Linux (if possible on the same hardware).
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#9What effect would turning off Javascript have on those numbers?
Re: Safari is more energy-efficient than Chrome and Firefox on OS X
#10This confirms my unquantified observations. I use Chrome only when I have to — for ClojureScript development, because the developer tools are better.
Same here - Safari is what I use for everyday browsing, Chrome is what I use for web development. Safari's developer tools are sluggish and awkward to use, but browsing on it is just a faster, more pleasurable experience.