11 ms·
Chrome is faster in M91
- franciscop 5y agoSorry what is M91? I thought it could be the new Apple processor that might be released later today but it seems like it's not. Cannot seem to find anything relevant as well...
- nathankleyn 5y agoIt's what they call the releases of Chrome — M91 is version 91.
- jeffbee 5y agoI think the number of comments here asking about the M indicate that it really is obscure jargon. The Chrome release blog doesn't use the M consistently, about:chrome doesn't use the M, and the M doesn't appear in the user agent string.
- kzrdude 5y agoIf they just had said Chrome 91 everyone would have been ok.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- turnerc 5y agoM = Milestone, M91 is major version 91 More info at https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/docs/process/release_cycle_new.md https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/...
- riyadparvez 5y agoI mistook it for Apple M1 chip and got very confused why there was no benchmark or mention of Apple silicon.
- nindalf 5y agoThey actually did mention M1 in the post > For some CPUs, calling functions that are further away from your generated code can cause CPU-internal optimizations (such as branch prediction logic) to fail. The fix for this is to copy the builtin functions into the same memory region as the generated code. This change is especially impactful for the new Apple M1 chip.
- jeffbee 5y agoIf a quarter of chrome’s global CPU rate is 17 years per day, that means it’s only using about 27000 cores continuously. I’ve often been curious about the split between client and server CPU usage on the web. Apparently, the client usage is negligible.
- nwellnhof 5y agoThe post says "up to 23% faster". On average, it's probably less than 1%.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nsbk 5y agoI think the article focuses on JS execution CPU usage and its savings on M91, so it doesn't count for all the CPU Chrome uses. About the split, it depends a lot on the type of content. If you're visiting a statically generated page, that's negligible on the server and puts the strain on the client: Document formatting, JS execution, image rendering, etc. If you're dialling into a 10 person google meet, your laptop fans will start spinning fast, but also the server needs to transcode/serve the video (well, multiple servers, multiple services most likely) so heavy on both sides. If you're consuming some elaborate web dashboard with high data requirements, then the strain is probably on the server side.
- tutfbhuf 5y agoWhat's the mean speedup? "Up to 23%" means that this is the maximum speedup that is possible for individual users.
- jeffbee 5y agoIf you click through to the linked posts they give numbers, for example it says that the short builtins change saves 10% on Facebook and 15% on YouTube.
- nubela 5y agoMaybe consider other browsers now. Yes speed is great and all and as much as I hate the idea of supporting the little guy just because he is a little guy; this is the web at stake. And most of us make our living on the web. It is in my opinion that the gatekeeper of the web (browser) should not also be the one taxing web traffic (via ads). Personally, I am on Microsoft Edge because it was low-effort coming from Chrome. But I have learnt that Microsoft Edge is as bad as Google Chrome (for me) because they are mirroring Google Chrome with regards to Manifest V3. I had thought the only other guy that will stand up to Google is Microsoft but hey, what do I know. Anyways, it seems like Firefox is the last non-chromium browser that has the balls to keep uBlock Origin supported as it is. I'll be moving to Firefox as soon as I port my personal productivity extensions over.
- zamadatix 5y agoBrave/Opera/Vivaldi all plan on continuing to support the blocking declarativeNetRequest API if you want options for a Chromium based browser.
- fastball 5y agoSwitch to Brave. Great ad-blocking by default and chromium based.
- scns 5y agoYou can even install uBlock original on it.
- dao- 5y ago> and chromium based. That may seem like a plus from a user's perspective when websites were only tested with / optimized for Chrome. From the perspective of someone who's concerned about Google's power as a monopoly, alternative browsers being Chromium-based is just part of the problem. Sure, you can fork Chromium in theory, but making changes that are incompatible with Google's vision is going to be a problem for you. So Google is still going to be in control as long as they ship the browser that dominates all others. Brave don't have the resources to maintain an engine by themselves anyway. Besides Mozilla, only Apple and Microsoft could do it, and Microsoft already gave up.
- pricci 5y agoM## is the milestone number or stable release version
- topicseed 5y agoI love Chrome and I am amongst those who are not planning to switch anytime soon. My ecosystem is mostly Google for work, my passwords are in there, and I just enjoy the synergy with my phone, too. But... It's true that trying Safari or Firefox or Brave showed great speed improvements over Chrome. The memory hog is real with Chrome, too. So, if this is true and replicates in my session then this is amazing news.
- alpaca128 5y agoBrave is based on Chromium, so you're not going to get much more other than a preinstalled adblocker and a few other tweaks. The memory usage won't look much better.
- ravedave5 5y agoI switched to firefox for personal use only. I still like chrome for work. It's a good way to try out firefox and it also separates my work and home life which is nice.
- ravenstine 5y agoI would use Firefox for work except there doesn't seem to be an equivalent to `chrome://inspect`. That's quite literally the only reason I use Chrome at work besides the obvious (cross browser support). If I could debug Deno/Node apps without Chrome, that would be super.
- warrenm 5y agoWhat does chrome://inspect do that Firefox's web developer tools doesn't?
- stonemetal12 5y agoIt allows you to connect developer tools to a nodejs instance as if that nodejs instance was running in your browser. On the firefox side there is node-firefox that should accomplish the job. That hasn't been updated in like 5 years, so who knows if it actually works.
- randomopining 5y agoChrome seems to be overall the fastest on windows. But it’s negative is worse memory usage compared to the others. So if you have a few tabs and want the fastest experience, it’s good I think.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y agoIt's nice but I value privacy more.
- Crash0v3rid3 5y agoI hope HN decides to put rules in place to prevent these types of comments. The article talks about speed improvements in Chrome yet some folks want to immediately jump to discuss lack of privacy and moving to Firefox. What happened to just talking about Tech?
- oefrha 5y agoHN does have rules in place. > Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Downvote and move on. Flag if egregious. Email if you see huge off-topic threads.
- zamadatix 5y agoI don't mind the topic on principal alone and think privacy of the tech is a natural points of conversation for plenty of hackers but only if they are substantive/thought out and not just short dismissive flaimbait to plant the controversy in every thread. These things are already in the guidelines though, no need for a new rule.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y agoFrankly, there is not much to add. Google will continue to develop Chrome, add new features, making the JS engine faster, maybe trying to sneak in some feature that will make adblocking less efficient and so on. In the past, when we heard about good developments, we would happily hooray them. These days the situation is very different. I don't feel like arguing about it though as everybody has their opinion on it and it's unlikely to change.
- muyuu 5y agoI think privacy is relevant in any thread related to browser choice right now; relevance is always going to be partially subjective
- alpaca128 5y agoAnd how many decades if not centuries of daily CPU time are wasted thanks to ads on the internet?
- est31 5y agoEven worse: Google doodles: https://www.cnet.com/news/study-pac-man-on-google-wasted-4-8-million-hours/ https://www.cnet.com/news/study-pac-man-on-google-wasted-4-8...
- goldenkey 5y agoThe doodles are a feckless attempt for Google to be personable despite their horns. Egh. Let the downvotes count the number of Google employees that mob HN everytime their chef-made lunch and massage provider is slighted. :-)
- pradn 5y agoIf you call play "waste", I don't know what to tell you. Joy is what people live for, not maximizing their employers' ROI.
- yitchelle 5y agoRemember when you could turn off the graphic loading part of the browser, and essentially only browse the web in text mode. That would be save millennia of time.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- splatcollision 5y agoIs chrome still automatically uploading any saved credit card information from the browser to your google account, and automatically putting test charges on those cards? Without warning?
- judge2020 5y agoChrome prompts you to save credit cards to your Google account when you submit them on forms - it never did it automatically. https://i.judge.sh/hurtful/Chaser/chrome_34ontqm6iJ.png https://i.judge.sh/hurtful/Chaser/chrome_34ontqm6iJ.png
- oefrha 5y agoMore technical discussion of the Sparkplug compiler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27304808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27304808 https://v8.dev/blog/sparkplug https://v8.dev/blog/sparkplug
- harikb 5y agoWhile the other comments are focusing on improvements for browser, v8 is also what powers Node, Deno, and several cloud workers implementations. While I don’t yet know if this particular change improves server-side work flow, I am hoping it does. I plan to do some tests. I applaud the work done by v8 team, releasing it as an open source JavaScript executor, and excellent technical articles on the v8 blog [1] Can we please separate the blaming and shaming of ads-ecosystem for a moment and appreciate the technical achievements this team is creating? [1]. https://v8.dev/blog https://v8.dev/blog
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Zababa 5y agoMaybe it will help make some command line utilities start faster? I'd like to see a before and after on tools like webpack.
- JeromeLon 5y agoTo give some timeline perspective, here are the stable launch dates: - M90 (90.0.4430.66): April 13 2021 - M91 (91.0.4472.77): May 25 2021 - M92 (estimated): July 20, 2021
- lsc36 5y agoCurrent/past release schedule can be found here: https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/schedule https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/schedule
- The_rationalist 5y agoNative GUIs frameworks cannot keep up with chromium human resources, it's economics 101
- gautamcgoel 5y agoThe real question is why we tolerate Javascript at all. It's a security nightmare and isn't really designed to run fast. In 20 years, people will have shifted to a less horrible alternative.
- The_rationalist 5y agoI wonder how many more years of compute could be saved if they invested in graalJS
- pca006132 5y agoCan we save more CPU time if we use wasm to replace js?
- kizer 5y agoV8 is really an engineering marvel, making such a high-level, dynamically typed language as fast as it is. I see people talking about WASM and “why bother with JS at all”, but keep in mind that JS code is more expressive than WASM, so if you’re aim is to minimize costs you still save bandwidth using JS over WASM. You could argue that it’s negligible or worth the performance increase, but if you’re a big site the cost savings add up, right? Also, JS is of course widely used outside of the browser, and there’s a reason it got so popular: it lets you focus on the domain instead of all the other stuff. I can’t think of another mainstream language I’d rather use to prototype and algorithm, application, system, whatever. And the fact that V8 makes it so fast is the reason people just stick with JS. Gradual typing with TS eliminates the only remaining downside (dynamic typing and a big code base).
- will4274 5y ago> JS code is more expressive than WASM, so if you’re aim is to minimize costs you still save bandwidth using JS over WASM. Dubious, given that WASM is bytecode, unlike JS. Do you have data to cite?
- grishka 5y agoNo matter what you do, web development would still feel like you're scripting a word processor because that's exactly what it is. Web was never intended to be an application platform, and so it makes a terrible application platform. No amount of band-aid is going to change this. Unpopular opinion: JS should be slow to discourage abuse. Browsers should not be embracing SPAs.
- boramalper 5y agoOn the opposite, I find Web as a platform much more accessible (as a developer) than having to program with desktop toolkits (Gtk, Qt, etc). Tight iteration loop (F5, F5, F5...), the one and only truly cross-platform solution (from different desktop OSes to billions of mobile devices and smart TVs...), a rich open-source ecosystem (~1.3 million packages on npm). What else?
- grishka 5y agoCross-platform GUIs always, inevitably, suck. Yes, Qt too. Electron apps just feel like they don't belong on your OS. They try hard to reimplement all the behaviors you'd get for free if you used the OS's native GUI toolkit, but they do it shittily and it shows. It's extremely hard to make a cross-platform app that feels like a native one. I haven't seen a single one yet. > a rich open-source ecosystem (~1.3 million packages on npm) And people using those packages without ever understanding what's inside, resulting in unneeded abstraction layers and enormous bloat.
- stereoradonc 5y agoWhy not use Vivaldi? It is Chrome without the Google bits. No Floc either.
- lostmsu 5y agoWhat's your take on Vivaldi vs Brave (or any other alternatives not made by China)?