3 ms·
AMP is really ridiculous. I tried a top article from mobile.nytimes.com via AMP (google link) and direct link. The AMP version takes more than 3 times longer to
by Yokohiii 10y ago
AMP is really ridiculous. I tried a top article from mobile.nytimes.com via AMP (google link) and direct link. The AMP version takes more than 3 times longer to render above the fold with a 3g regular throttling and cold caches, while the direct link was done in <2s. Chrome doesn't even record enough frames to show when the above the fold content is visible. With warm caches the render performance difference is roughly the same. Wasn't AMP ment to help with that? Superior client side rendering and top notch caching?
- alexbecker 10y agoAre you using an adblocker? If so, does the adblocker successfully block ads for both the AMP and non-AMP page?
- angry-hacker 10y agoIf you whitelist Google, it does not block ads.
- sciurus 10y agoCan you share those links? That has not been my experience.