4 ms·
I decided to measure the memory consumption of browser's new tab pages using a woefully unscientific method (simply looking at the memory usage tab in Activity
by 1f60c 6y ago
I decided to measure the memory consumption of browser's new tab pages using a woefully unscientific method (simply looking at the memory usage tab in Activity Monitor and tallying everything up):
Firefox 505 MB
Safari 480 MB
Chrome 464 MB
So it seems like they're about equal?
- saagarjha 6y agoAre you including helper processes?
- afrcnc 6y agoNo he's not. He's also not looking at his CPU usage, where Chrome will literally go towards the high 70s for no fudging reason, while idle
- londons_explore 6y agoClear your browser profile. Chrome profiles get slow and CPU heavy after multiple years use.
- 1f60c 6y ago> he *she :-) > Chrome will literally go towards the high 70s for no fudging reason, while idle That seems extraordinarily high, and I've personally never experienced that problem.
- blackflame7000 6y agoYes, because why are 14 helper processes needed to show a blank page?
- userbinator 6y agoIs that a blank tab? For someone who browsed the web quite successfully for a long time on a PC with only a quarter of that RAM in total, those numbers look outrageously huge. If they're blank pages, one has to wonder what exactly needs to use that much.
- londons_explore 6y agoThere are sooo many places in the source code of a browser where the developer has to choose between "we could use an extra 100 kilobytes of RAM here", or "we have to use more CPU/be slower/add more complexity/add possible security risks/etc." I think in most cases, and for most real world users, they have made the right call. And the product I'm building right now, every kilobyte of RAM Chrome uses to render my webpage costs me multiple dollars per month, and I still think the devs made the right choice.