I have 4.1.249.1064 (45376)
Goes WAYYYYY slower then FF. I thought it might have been a cache issue, so I loaded my web page a few times in a row in Chrome.
FF took about 3 seconds to completely load my page- Chrome took about 10, every time.
My PHP code only has a specific change for Internet Explorer; both FF and Chrome are receiving the same HTML. For some reason FF displays it faster.
"but! Don't worry, it's lightweight, and doesn't use as much memory as Firefox" chrome advocates might say.
True. I have 6 tabs open in each browser, and Chrome is using 100MB (combining the memory use of all of it's processes, which is another caveat I should discuss), while FF is using a little less then 200. Considering I have 8GB of RAM, I really don't care wether the 20 or so add ons I have installed in Firefox are consuming 100 megabytes of RAM, since the 20 addons I have installed in FF don't exist for Chrome at all. (tabmixplus is a rather "heavy" addon, as well, I would imagine if I was to disable it my mem usage would be around 50MB.
Another point of note is that Firefox has been open for over 2 weeks without being closed. No joke. I just opened chrome. Evidently Firefox doesn't have any memory leaks as people like to claim. (at least, not anymore).
Now. While everybody else is focussing on memory usage between Chrome and Firefox, they seem to forget that Chrome starts a new process for every single tab. Not only does this mean that Chrome essentially "forces" itself to have more CPU time, it means that any use of the chrome browser outside of the browser content invokes cross-process calls to the other Chrome instances, additionally, it means that task manager is not actually telling us the whole story- the default memory display is "private working set" however, we have to take into account that each process is given resources for their shared resources- such as their resources within the EXE;
By changing the tabs to "working set", I notice that my Firefox browser is using a little over 310MB. Chrome, adding up each process, combines to 450MB.
On to the "multiple processes" concept that has been heralded as "magical" and useful.
First off- I'd like to say this:
using a new process for every single tab is the most ridiculous, and even stupid concept I have ever heard of. What? Is there something wrong with creating a new thread? Or is that too complicated? Now every single Chrome tab get's it's very own process with the memory consumption that goes along side every process that you cannot see (things like the thread information block, allocated process-private structures created by user,gdi, and other windows dlls in their DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH, as well as OLE/COM, which no doubt is being used for cross-process communication in the Windows version of Chrome. These memory allocations are not reflected <anywhere> in task manager, but each process has a "base" amount of memory that is consumed.
Not to mention the fact that every single chrome process has the same priority, so now, in effect, Chrome is taking up n times as much processor time as Firefox or internet explorer, where n is the number of tabs open. No wonder it would be more responsive, it has more CPU time.
Seriously, WHY DID THEY USE MULTIPLE PROCESSES? unless they think their javascript engine is likely to crash completely, they should have just used multiple threads.
