2 ms·
> Chrome takes 102-200ms to render the page, Firefox takes 150-400ms. 1.5 to 2x slower -- and that's after all the performance upgrades they've done with Rust a
by DangerousPie 6y ago
> Chrome takes 102-200ms to render the page, Firefox takes 150-400ms. 1.5 to 2x slower -- and that's after all the performance upgrades they've done with Rust and Quantum.
How did you actually measure this? I wonder whether these small timing differences may just be differences in how the respective dev tools report the timing info.
FWIW I also don't think the relative difference will be this large for bigger sites - I'd be very surprised if a site that takes 1s to load in Chrome would take 1.5-2s in Firefox.
- andai 6y agoThere was a noticeable increase in GMail loading time (when I switched to FF a while back), but once it actually loaded it was the same speed (slow af on both lol). As an aside, it's gotten even more bloated in the meantime (for some Google PM's promotion), I just use Basic HTML now. Loads instantly :) So once the page is loaded, JS performance seems to be about on par, but page loads are faster in Chrome. To measure I just used dev tools. But there is quite a lot of randomness involved -- sometimes the engine scheduling planets align, and sometimes they are way out of alignment. You'd need thousands of samples or more to get an accurate reading. I just refreshed a few times to get ballpark numbers.