5 ms·

Just FYI, Chrome drains your laptop battery, on Linux at least - just play with powertop and see for yourself. Not sure why it causes so many CPU wakeups, but I

Just FYI, Chrome drains your laptop battery, on Linux at least - just play with powertop and see for yourself. Not sure why it causes so many CPU wakeups, but I get about 30 minutes less 3:30 vs 4hr if I'm surfing in Chrome vs Firefox.

est 16y ago
I presume that's a trade off for fast javascript?
- jamesaguilar 16y ago
  I don't see why fast Javascript should equal frequent CPU wakeups.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    No, but getting lower latency javascript with tab-level independent parallelism makes a lot more CPU available. Firefox simply runs all javascript in one physical thread, so it can only ever use about 100% CPU, while Chrome can use N00% CPU.
    - jamesaguilar 16y ago
      If the same amount of overall work is getting done, that shouldn't matter. At any rate, these wakeups will be when chrome is idle in the background, so I doubt it will be using more than one whole CPU.
- natmaster 16y ago
  Yet Firefox 4 is faster in both Sunspider and Kraken. (And V8 if you discount silly things like raytracing and process scheduling- why would anyone do those in javascript?)
  - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    Yet Chrome is still far faster if you have a multi-core system and are actually running more than one tab. FF4 can be as fast as it wants in processing Javascript, but it still can't scale that performance like Chrome can.
    - natmaster 16y ago
      And then Chrome tries to render some complex Canvas or SVG and grinds to a halt.
    - aerique 16y ago
      Actually, after initially starting it up and liking the speed, I found that Chrome quickly approached Firefox like performance levels once I started using more and more tabs.
  - dunstad 16y ago
    The things that lead to the most innovation are the things that don't seem sensible to do at first. For example, if you mean raytracing in the sense of computer graphics, improving its performance would lead to a possible greater presence of 3d applications on the web.
    - natmaster 16y ago
      Doing raytracing in javascript is a bad idea. Period. There are many ways to do 3d on the web with greater flexibility and WAY more performance. WebGL is one, CUDA support in javascript is another: http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/01/25/elevating-javascript-performance-through-gpu-power/ http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/01/25/elevating-javascri.... There is no reason to do that type of computation in the interpretation layer of javascript. (This is akin to saying you would prefer a pure python implementation of disk io, as opposed to the built in method which is implemented in C.)
br1 16y ago
It seems Google suck at efficient battery use. GTalk reconfigures the windows system timer for 1 ms granularity even when minimized.
metabrew 16y ago
On my macbook (with intel/nvidia auto switching graphics) chrome will grab the nvidia card and never release it. If i force it to use the onboard intel card it works fine, and doesn't get insanely hot running flash videos. That hurts battery life too.

est 16y ago

I presume that's a trade off for fast javascript?

jamesaguilar 16y ago
I don't see why fast Javascript should equal frequent CPU wakeups.
- blasdel 16y ago
  No, but getting lower latency javascript with tab-level independent parallelism makes a lot more CPU available. Firefox simply runs all javascript in one physical thread, so it can only ever use about 100% CPU, while Chrome can use N00% CPU.
  - jamesaguilar 16y ago
    If the same amount of overall work is getting done, that shouldn't matter. At any rate, these wakeups will be when chrome is idle in the background, so I doubt it will be using more than one whole CPU.
natmaster 16y ago
Yet Firefox 4 is faster in both Sunspider and Kraken. (And V8 if you discount silly things like raytracing and process scheduling- why would anyone do those in javascript?)
- nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
  Yet Chrome is still far faster if you have a multi-core system and are actually running more than one tab. FF4 can be as fast as it wants in processing Javascript, but it still can't scale that performance like Chrome can.
  - natmaster 16y ago
    And then Chrome tries to render some complex Canvas or SVG and grinds to a halt.
  - aerique 16y ago
    Actually, after initially starting it up and liking the speed, I found that Chrome quickly approached Firefox like performance levels once I started using more and more tabs.
- dunstad 16y ago
  The things that lead to the most innovation are the things that don't seem sensible to do at first. For example, if you mean raytracing in the sense of computer graphics, improving its performance would lead to a possible greater presence of 3d applications on the web.
  - natmaster 16y ago
    Doing raytracing in javascript is a bad idea. Period. There are many ways to do 3d on the web with greater flexibility and WAY more performance. WebGL is one, CUDA support in javascript is another: http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/01/25/elevating-javascript-performance-through-gpu-power/ http://mozillalabs.com/jetpack/2010/01/25/elevating-javascri.... There is no reason to do that type of computation in the interpretation layer of javascript. (This is akin to saying you would prefer a pure python implementation of disk io, as opposed to the built in method which is implemented in C.)

br1 16y ago

It seems Google suck at efficient battery use. GTalk reconfigures the windows system timer for 1 ms granularity even when minimized.

metabrew 16y ago

On my macbook (with intel/nvidia auto switching graphics) chrome will grab the nvidia card and never release it. If i force it to use the onboard intel card it works fine, and doesn't get insanely hot running flash videos. That hurts battery life too.