- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Because 99.9% of people use 20 or less...
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
when did Chrome become such a pig?
- Thread starter bob4933
- Start date
Because 99.9% of people use 20 or less...
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
240 Tabs in Firefox (not identical) is about 940MiB, this is from a fresh start, so only those tabs that are pinned or currently in use have been auto loaded. Keep in mind I am using the 32bit FF, so even with a crazy number of tabs (700+), it'll never use more then around 2GiB of ram.
I'll get back to you tomorrow with IE.
I'll get back to you tomorrow with IE.
I start up with ~28 pinned tabs + the previous session, W7 with Pale Moon x64 (x64 browsers use ~20% more memory than their x86 equivalents); sometimes my sessions are 7-12 days uptime. Not seen more than 3GB in use outside of really badly written websites.
It's not uncommon for me to have 100+ tabs open, peaking around 200-250.
I'm very light on add-ons and extensions.
It's not uncommon for me to have 100+ tabs open, peaking around 200-250.
I'm very light on add-ons and extensions.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
You would think that the contents of TABs would influence things too?
So to really test and compare accurately, TABs need to be opened in the same way from the same page.
Even accessing the actual TABs would influence the test.
You don't have to do any of this but that would be the only way to accurately test the comparison.
In other words, to clarify, if you are on the same page A on all three browsers. And you right click on the same link > Open in new TAB on all three browsers. IF you actually CLICK on the newly opened TAB, to view it - that would influence the test!
I distinctly remember in Firefox's history when Firefox was experimenting with optimizing this very topic.
I think somewhere around version 4. They got it right now but it would be interesting to know how browsers compare.
They all should have mastered memory usage by now... so browser choice usually tends to be influenced by add-ons (or lack of them) and privacy protection.
So to really test and compare accurately, TABs need to be opened in the same way from the same page.
Even accessing the actual TABs would influence the test.
You don't have to do any of this but that would be the only way to accurately test the comparison.
In other words, to clarify, if you are on the same page A on all three browsers. And you right click on the same link > Open in new TAB on all three browsers. IF you actually CLICK on the newly opened TAB, to view it - that would influence the test!
I distinctly remember in Firefox's history when Firefox was experimenting with optimizing this very topic.
I think somewhere around version 4. They got it right now but it would be interesting to know how browsers compare.
They all should have mastered memory usage by now... so browser choice usually tends to be influenced by add-ons (or lack of them) and privacy protection.
How? Doesn't it render the page completely regardless if you are on that tab or not? I know advertisements change, so even the dynamic items on the page are still doing their thing while not on that tab actively. Once a page loads, it shouldn't affect system ram in a more than negligible manner.
The falling tree (tab) does still make sound (renders fully) if nobody is there to hear it (have the tab up) in this case...
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
I participated when Mozilla was doing the optimizations, mainly because I was able to crash Firefox quickly and effectively before they optimized it and thought this was a *huge* exploit.
There were more than 30 versions since then and I don't know how/if they changed things but I know that Mozilla started to have certain things load ONLY if they came into focus, in other words, only if you actually clicked to VIEW the TAB - not if you merely right clicked on 40 fairly high res links in quick succession > Open in new TAB -- which was how I was able to crash Firefox when I opened a Mozilla bug report.
There were more than 30 versions since then and I don't know how/if they changed things but I know that Mozilla started to have certain things load ONLY if they came into focus, in other words, only if you actually clicked to VIEW the TAB - not if you merely right clicked on 40 fairly high res links in quick succession > Open in new TAB -- which was how I was able to crash Firefox when I opened a Mozilla bug report.
Ahh, yeah, I don't use FF (unless I have to, thanks W10 and Chrome 64bit and Battelog!!). But Chrome seems to load everything regardless if it is in focus. Either that or those things load in the instant I click on it?
I know the memory used by a tab in chrome doesn't change much after you click on the page. At least after it loads and cycles through everything dynamic (like advertisements) anyway. So I would imagine a bit of a jump, but they should remain relatively static once the loading is done.
I know the memory used by a tab in chrome doesn't change much after you click on the page. At least after it loads and cycles through everything dynamic (like advertisements) anyway. So I would imagine a bit of a jump, but they should remain relatively static once the loading is done.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
No, you are correct. The way Chrome works, and has for some time (since they went with their "sandbox" implementation?) is that every tab is alive and active at all times, hence the fast switching and responsiveness going between tabs, and that if one bad tab crashes, it won't bring down the entire browser (already had 1 tab crash once). FF though only loads when the tab has focus.
I'll run a more thorough test tomorrow on all 3.
I'll run a more thorough test tomorrow on all 3.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
I have 330+ tabs open in my Firefox session (though not all of them are being actively accessed/refreshed), and I typically see 1.5GB-2GB of usage for Firefox at the very most when I'm using it. Usually it's somewhere between 500MB-1.25GB. I do a lot of research on different topics (computers, phones, cars, firearms, etc), and tend to refer back to tabs I'm doing research on often, so I just leave the tabs open for months on end so that I don't have to go back and find the site again.
On Firefox versions post version 12.0 (12.0 is the last one I know of that actively refreshed all open tabs) the open tabs are not actively refreshed unless you have purposely clicked on the individual tab during the currently opened session of using the program.
I like the new method better quite frankly, because with all of my tabs being actively refreshed at once my computer would absolutely freeze up until all of the tabs had a chance to refresh during the initial fire-up of the program.
On Firefox versions post version 12.0 (12.0 is the last one I know of that actively refreshed all open tabs) the open tabs are not actively refreshed unless you have purposely clicked on the individual tab during the currently opened session of using the program.
I like the new method better quite frankly, because with all of my tabs being actively refreshed at once my computer would absolutely freeze up until all of the tabs had a chance to refresh during the initial fire-up of the program.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
Ah, other people with lots of tabs open. I use palemoon, with tree-style tabs and tabmixplus. And ghostery. And disconnect. And noscript.
With javascript mostly turned off, 88 tabs loaded use 1 GB. I have no idea what would happen if I allowed javascript globally. It would probably crash the browser with an un-responsive script error, if past occurrences are any guide.
Palemoon might be of use to you guys, especially if you don't need tree-style tabs, or tabmixplus (they aren't really compatible, and have issues with the icons up top vanishing, or not displaying information). And no-script is a sanity-saver, when javascript is off (mostly) the browser never crashes. It's wonderful!
With javascript mostly turned off, 88 tabs loaded use 1 GB. I have no idea what would happen if I allowed javascript globally. It would probably crash the browser with an un-responsive script error, if past occurrences are any guide.
Palemoon might be of use to you guys, especially if you don't need tree-style tabs, or tabmixplus (they aren't really compatible, and have issues with the icons up top vanishing, or not displaying information). And no-script is a sanity-saver, when javascript is off (mostly) the browser never crashes. It's wonderful!
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
Ok, informal test using overclockers.com main page, and here are my results:
Chrome 44.0.2403.130 m (64-bit)
Firefox 39 (32-bit)
Internet Explorer 11 (appears to be a mix of 32 and 64 bit)
IMO, Chrome is the clear winner in terms of speed, response to actions, and smoothness. Though as noted, the trade-off is that it's a memory hog.
Firefox is great if you are worried about memory usage, though still not as smooth at handling a large number of open tabs, and buggy (I don't know if it the extensions, FF itself, or what which causes problems and was the reason I switched to Chrome).
IE, I just wouldn't use it at all unless a website called it and wouldn't work in Chrome or Firefox.
Chrome 44.0.2403.130 m (64-bit)
- Startup only 1 tab open - About 600MB (I do have alot of extensions which take up a little less then 300MB on their own)
- 195 tabs opened and loaded - 7,261,431kB
- After Closeing all but 1 tab - 827,332kB
Firefox 39 (32-bit)
- Startup only 1 tab open - About 350MB (I have nearly the same exact extensions as I do in Chrome)
- 195 tabs opened and loaded - 2,458,028kB, still responsive though a little slow to respond to actions, and not as smooth.
- After Closeing all but 1 tab - About 1,850,000kB and going up about 1MB a second (probably mem leak, took some time for it to close, appeared like it was hanged)
Internet Explorer 11 (appears to be a mix of 32 and 64 bit)
- After 37 opened tabs - 3,619,234kB and getting extremely sluggish. Mouse very unresponsive and jumping all over the place over IE window. System started to get affected. Below 30 tabs ok. Did not complete test because of how unresponsive it was getting.
IMO, Chrome is the clear winner in terms of speed, response to actions, and smoothness. Though as noted, the trade-off is that it's a memory hog.
Firefox is great if you are worried about memory usage, though still not as smooth at handling a large number of open tabs, and buggy (I don't know if it the extensions, FF itself, or what which causes problems and was the reason I switched to Chrome).
IE, I just wouldn't use it at all unless a website called it and wouldn't work in Chrome or Firefox.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
+1Thanks for testing Mpegger, good info there
Thanks for testing this and surviving to tell the tale of using Internet Explorer
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
I concur!
- Joined
- May 30, 2004
That's a red herring. Unstable RAM.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
.......what?
I'd love to hear an explanation of what "red herring" is supposed to mean and how you know that it's instability in the RAM.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2012
- Location
- New York, USA
I can run that test real fast.
With Chrome up, as read by Open Hardware Monitor:
No Edge = 3GB
First opening Edge, 1 tab = 3.2GB
At less than 100 tabs, I'm up to 15.7GB USED! I'm ending this test right now, as it's pretty clear Edge is a full blown memory hog.
Screenie:
Btw: That picture is so true!
Similar threads
