4 ms·

You have to shuffle heaps of data between Javascript and the gpu, I’ve found Firefox’s js engine to be slower at doing that. Firefox also seems to call the garb

You have to shuffle heaps of data between Javascript and the gpu, I’ve found Firefox’s js engine to be slower at doing that. Firefox also seems to call the garbage collector much more often, and do it’s business a bit slower. Normally you don’t notice, but trying to keep things at 60fps it shows up rather quickly. N=1

skywal_l 5y ago
Ok so what's slower is the JS engine which is a more reasonable claim. My experience is it depends on the types of work your doing but in general, indeed, chrome seems faster. But Firefox has improved a lot with quantum.
sfink 5y ago
If you have a nice reproducible case of the garbage collection problem, please file a bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core&component=JavaScript%3A+GC https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core&comp... and I'll take a look. I've seen some similar issues, but I don't have anything good to work against right now. (The first thing I'll do is grab a profile with https://profiler.firefox.com https://profiler.firefox.com and that'll immediately tell basically what's going on. You could grab one too, and that'll be useful even if there's not an easy way to give me a reproduction.) There's also a very recently landed change that might help, if the problem happens to be excessively long minor GCs (which is what I've seen with similar sites): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1751162 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1751162 Shuffling data to the GPU could be an interesting case too, but that's not handled by the JS engine itself so I'm not as familiar with how that works. It sounds like it might be worth a bug if there isn't one already (and feel free to file; we'll triage and determine if it's a duplicate.)