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

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#111

Post by ksec »

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…

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 )

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#112

Post by swah »

dopa42365 wrote: post #92
CyberRabbi wrote: post #55

IMO Chrome desperately needs to minimize its memory usage.

Memory is like $3-4/GB (decently fast DDR4). And you've been fine with 16GB for a decade without upgrading. If you're stuck on some un-upgradable old budget device, it's unlikely the memory holding you back either.

OTOH - new, entry level Macbook M1s come with 8Gb RAM. Those are the ones I could afford (= full monthly salary) but I'm reluctant to buy because of Chrome.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#113

Post by eole666 »

underyx wrote: post #2

My Speedometer results on an M1 Mac are: - Chrome v99: 204 - Safari: 266 How come I fall so far short of the post's advertised fastest-of-any-browser 300? Edit: Running in incognito got me a 251, so some of the slowdown must be from extensions. Edit 2: Seems like 1password and uBlock Origin decrease the score by around 30 each, I got a 276 with both disabled.

Maybe because Safari runs exclusively on MacOS and so can have a lot of OS specific optimizations ?

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#114

Post by mda »

laszlokorte wrote: post #103
mda wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Use adblockers, Use different search engine if you don't like it.

Can't comment about account being banned.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#115

Post by debesyla »

pbw wrote: post #109

> Nothing is more frustrating than having a slow experience while browsing the web. This seems a bit tone deaf with a war going on?

I'm not sure...

1) "while browsing the web", not "in life";

2) This is an article about a web browser and the article isn't trying to compare browsers to real life scenarios, let alone wars...

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#116

Post by yc4joe »

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 agree 100% -- and, as a front-end developer for more than half the time I've been writing code for web applications since 1995, I think my opinion should matter. I've seen the trends and can relate to exactly this point. Well-stated and, frankly, late to the public eye (but, that's my fault since I should've written something similar years ago).

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#117

Post by dspillett »

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.

It isn't a surprise when you consider indirect power costs: CPU use filling that memory and reading it back later, extra IO because the memory consumed is not available for caching purposes (or worse because paging out to more power-expensive storage is happening), and so forth.

It is like when people say page fragmentation in SQL Server isn't important any more because random access is so fast due to SSDs and other IO subsystem improvements – pages are held in RAM in the storage format so if they are only ⅔ filled you are wasting ⅓ of the allocated memory which can have significant performance effects if your common working set is not smaller than the memory available. Though in fairness, I would agree that this issue is usually quite far down the list of things that need addressing in poorly performing database & applications.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#118

Post by dwiel »

ksec wrote: post #111
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…

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.

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#119

Post by dspillett »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #97
aurora72 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High memory consumption eats battery life too

Given that only one of those components tends to have active cooling as a requirement, I'll assume that the difference in energy consumption is at least an order of magnitude. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Even in the lowest power consuming of sleep modes volatile RAM still needs to be constantly refreshed, so considering a device with a duty cycle like that of a phone or tablet you might find the power being used for memory is more significant than you think. But that refresh is essentially a fixed cost from a software PoV, if the memory is not used it'll still be refreshed, where chunks of modern CPUs can be almost completely turned off when not needed. There are secondary costs of extra memory use though (CPU to populate & later read, IO subsystem activity as there is less free memory for cache, etc.).

Re: A new speed milestone for Chrome

#120

Post by IshKebab »

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.

That sounds unlikely since DRAM is all refreshed constantly regardless of whether or not it is being used.

Perhaps you meant storing and fetching from memory lots impacts battery life?

Post reply on HN