Firefox vs Chrome (& -ium) RAM Usage

[belham2]

Hi all,

Was wondering if any of you are seeing the same thing as I am. I have tested this now across several puppies, and it is somewhat noticeable. In bigger Linux distros, like Ubuntu/Debian/Manjaro/OpenSUSE, it becomes really apparent.

What I am talking about is Firefox vs Chrome RAM Usage. I have been reading that the PR that Mozilla has put out the past year, that Quantum uses up to 25-30% less RAM than Chrome and/or any of its derivatives.

Well, from my perspective of across laptops to desktops, on different machines (AMD and Intel), this is just not true. In fact, in my mind, it is an outright lie. Especially if you try on low-RAM machines.

I use HTOP, and leave it open, so I can watch what amount of RAM (and SWAP) are used by the browsers.

Across identical websites, current Chrome/Chromium and its derivatives is consistently using 20-30% less RAM than what any Firefox Quantum version uses at the exact same sites. All these tests are with fresh restarts of various machines in the house here.

Are any of you seeing similar? (I know many of us blanch at the inability to customize Chrome, Firefox remains the clear winner here, but I am just focusing on browsing around the web, whether low-intensive sites or high-intensive sites, Firefox is just bloating up the RAM compared to Chrome-based browsers).


Here's an example, on both Phil's latest 64-bit BionicPUP & on OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, both completely updated, when I have tabs open on Yahoo's Sports page plus another tab on New York Times website, HTOP tells me Chrome-based browsers are consistently using about 550-600MB of RAM whereas the latest Firefox Quantum is using 900MB-1.0GB. This is repeated across many websites I frequent and test. The more tabs open, the more Firefox begins hogging up RAM and eventually spills into SWAP (on two small laptop minis I have). Even on some machines with 4GB of RAM, Firefox begins hogging up to 3GB+ RAM if I have several tabs open. Chrome is nowhere near this.

What the heck happened?? Mozilla has been claiming Quantum uses 20-25% less RAM compared to Chrome-browsers. As a sanity check, I tried Firefox versions below Quantum, and they were right at current Chrome-based browser RAM usage levels, or consistently a touch lower.

It is mucho hard to stick with Firefox, for general browsing purposes, when this is so apparent. This is especially true when it comes to Chrome-based browsers beautiful handling of video-sites and video-streaming services. As a side note, a couple of other forums I belong to, along with Reddit sub-forums, I am seeing people reporting this about Firefox Quantum and bad RAM hogging tendencies.

Mozilla has got a problem here..........

[pp4mnklinux]

Morning:

Completely agree with you, FF is fantastic for its extensions, but it EATS your RAM.

I have lots of it, but I want speed so ... SLIMJET

HAVE A NICE DAY, NIGHT AND ...


HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019

[Burn_IT]

The question that comes to my mind is "What do you use your computer for?"

Perhaps if you spent less time measuring and comparing software, the difference in speeds would not matter and you could actually get more done.

[belham2]

It must wholeheartedly be miserable to wake up and look at oneself in the morning like this.

And to think a person goes through the whole day, day after day, week after week, like this....wow and...sad......

Measuring?.....

[Moat]

I will say that in my own observation, early Quantum releases did show some very nice improvements in both RAM usage and speed. But - as is so typical of Mozilla - they've a bunch of devs to keep employed, so off they go and add, add, ADD un-needed and un-asked for features/background process, 'til they're soon right back smack where they started... or worse. The very definition of "feature creep" and the negatives it brings (i.e. - bloat).

Seems the management over there never, ever learns (as they sit and wonder why their share of the browser market continues to decline... ).

Their latest v 64 runs like cr@p on one of my Win7 installs (CPU and RAM hog, broken web pages, extensions flakey), and I've had to roll back to the ESR version (60) for relief.

Occasionally a very nice product that, eventually, never fails to disappoint.

Bob

[perdido]

Recently upgraded tor browser to find FF60 staring back.
All I thought was wtf is this thing???

The more I dug the less I liked it, there is very little that you can control with noscript, just a damn slider that
gives 3 settings, standard - safer - safest (I thought compared to what???

The whole look of FF is horrid and minimalistic resembling an android app

There was nothing improved, just rendered less adjustable. Like the NSA got involved.

I think palemoon would be a better base for tor, though the V28 palemoon release has broken quite a few once working features.

Makes you wonder what the heck is everyone thinking??
(or as my buddy GSP once said "If everyone is thinking the same, then somebody is not thinking")

Or maybe they are all just shadowing what ghoulie is up to, kind of like how everyone used to try to change their stuff
to accomodate how MS windows handled it.

Lesson learned from the windows chasing should be: - to avoid competing with ghoulie or you will end up like wordperfect.

.

[Burn_IT]

It is a function of all the software houses I have ever worked at that there ALWAYS has to be something new added and there always has to be a release every x months whether needed (by the users) or not.
I often saw the marketing team force features to be released before they were ready, and the excuse was often "Well it will make it easier to justify another release in 3 months to correct the bugs".

[backi]

Kicked the latest Firefox Quantum 32 Bit completely out .
Just causes me Trouble on my old 1 Gig Ram single Core Toshiba 3000 Machine.
Nearly unusable ...........Palemoon on the other Hand does fly like an Eagle on this old Clunker .

[8Geee]

Well, FF27 in an old Intel Atom N270 with 2Gb RAM (DDR2-667) is OK uses 304Mb of 2040Mb with three tabs open. Thats with tightened security, and several add-ons like BetterPrivacy, RedirectCleaner, AdBlock EDGE, Youtube HTML5, FireFTP, and Searchonymous (anti-Google).

FWIW for comparison
8Geee

[Ananda98]

Well, I think too.
When appeared for first time, Chromium (I used Google Chrome) eats more RAM, more than Firefox.
I ever compared it in 2011, when I had Firefox and Chrome installed on old Toshiba laptop (Satellite, 1 gig RAM with centrino duo processor).

I still remember, Firefox still has it's original face (tab below title bar, with dotted circle loading icon) and Chrome with it's style.

Chrome hang when I opened only three tabs (Facebook, and two google search). But, with Firefox, I can opened more than 15 tabs, without any lags.

But, today it changes. Chrome has more better memory management than Firefox.

Running both browser in new friend's asus laptop, I need to wait for two or three minutes, until Firefox ready to bring me surf the net, when Opera (new version has Chromium based too) and Chrome can bring me to the net no more than 50 seconds. More faster, and more better memory management.