Thorium

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, Dave-H said:

Using --disable-highres-timer did more harm than good on my system.
Yes, the browser loaded a bit more quickly, but Instagrm looked a total mess, like the CSS files weren't loaded, and several other sites also produced a mess before rendering properly.

It's very strange, it's not related to CSS, nowhere near it. And the author of Thorium suggests that flag himself.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I can't link to his site because he hosts Windows cr*cks, pirated loaders on it.

But I can make a quote, those interested may find themselves.

"--disable-highres-timer[1] ## Disables high-resolution timer on Windows."

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

The most effect of it when you have a motherborad with HPET off.

With our without HPET, yes, a bit faster start, like Dave wrote. But I'm not on a single core.

3 hours ago, Dave-H said:

Yes, the browser loaded a bit more quickly

Those on a single core would've seen a faster startup.

[66cats]

36 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

Thorium is noticeably faster

Is for me too (in XP), both about the same in Vista & 7.

BTW, sorry for linking images, can't embed them (images of any size) for some reason.

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, 66cats said:

BTW, sorry for linking images, can't embed them (images of any size) for some reason.

Probably you hit the size limit. Try to delete your old attachments. It helped me, I can embed since then.

[66cats]

4 minutes ago, Dixel said:

delete your old attachments

I think that was it, thanks.

[Dixel]

@Dave-H, would you be willing to try out --disable-low-res-tiling?

--disable-low-res-tiling reduces cpu usage and saves power

https://codereview.chromium.org/196473007/

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66825943/how-to-reduce-chromedriver-cpu-usage-in-selenium-python

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, 66cats said:

Is for me too (in XP), both about the same in Vista & 7.

BTW, sorry for linking images, can't embed them (images of any size) for some reason.

You have other sites opened in Supermium, this obviously adds performance penalty. Msfn, github and reddit. Esp. githun and reddit are heavy.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, Dave-H said:

I think Thorium is noticeably faster than Supermium in that respect.

Thorium actually starts relatively fast compared to other Chrome browsers under Windows XP, even on low-performance hardware like mine.  Of course, it has first to be configured well.

[Dave-H]

360Chrome starts fastest for me.

[66cats]

23 minutes ago, Dixel said:

obviously adds performance penalty

Doesn't seem to. Just retested three times with just one tab: 136, 125, 131. Then again, not really a night-and-day difference between the two, can't notice it outside benchmarks.

[AstroSkipper]

8 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

360Chrome starts fastest for me.

On my system, the 360Chrome 11.0.2031 worked really well. The version 13.5.1030 rebuild 7 worked relatively well but only when the chrome.dll was rebased. The site loading times were much worse than in version 11.0.2031. In contrast, Thorium doesn't need to be re-based by the user and consumes much less RAM than normal Chrome versions. The standard loading behaviour is an other history, unfortunately. However, this browser was never made for my old system, either. But as I already mentioned, I found a convenient way for me to let websites loading much faster. More about this soon! 

[Sampei.Nihira]

Hi to all,guys for better performance checks you should use the browser development tools.

Also it would be interesting to try at least the Medium Mode in uBlock Origin:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode

That reduces CPU and speeds up in web page loading.

P.S.

Those who do not want to try the Medium Mode could try this rule that blocks risky third-party content that does not come from the most used top-level domains.
The more domains you enter in "denyallow," the greater your use of UBO in Easy Mode will be:

 

|HTTPS://*$third-party,script,websocket,object,ping,subdocument,denyallow=your country|eu|app|com|edu|io|net|org|tv|inf|ms

 

Edited May 5 by Sampei.Nihira

[Milkinis]

53 minutes ago, 66cats said:

can't notice it outside benchmarks.

gut feeling @NotHereToPlayGames

[Milkinis]

37 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

The version 13.5.1030 rebuild 7 worked relatively well but only when the chrome.dll was rebased.  

it's rebased by default 

https://msfn.org/board/topic/184515-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1351030-rebuild-8/?do=findComment&comment=1242048

 

[Dave-H]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

On my system, the 360Chrome 11.0.2031 worked really well. The version 13.5.1030 rebuild 7 worked relatively well but only when the chrome.dll was rebased. The site loading times were much worse than in version 11.0.2031. In contrast, Thorium doesn't need to be re-based by the user and consumes much less RAM than normal Chrome versions. The standard loading behaviour is an other history, unfortunately. However, this browser was never made for my old system, either. But as I already mentioned, I found a convenient way for me to let websites loading much faster. More about this soon! 

I still get out of memory crashes on tabs with Thorium, but it's nowhere near as bad as Supermium was.
Supermium may have improved in that respect of course, I haven't yet updated from version 122.0.6261.85.
My 360Chome (13.5.2036.0) does use a rebased chrome.dll of course.