Sampei.Nihira Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Chrome Extension Performance Lookup: https://www.debugbear.com/chrome-extension-performance-lookup also added MV3 extensions. I will insert 2 images with Adguard Mv3 and uBlock Origin Lite: Adguard Mv3: uBlock Origin Lite: It is interesting to verify that, in the 3 test websites, uBlock Origin Lite makes the browser faster not only when the extension is compared with AdGuard MV3 but also in comparison with uBlock Origin (MV2). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Not sure how much faith I'd place in those scores. Though the idea of a performance lookup is quite intriguing. It's also "curious" that ScriptBlock scores the same exact scores as UBO Lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampei.Nihira Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 (edited) uBlock Origin Lite is certainly faster than uBlock Origin as far as reported here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home Quote ....uBOL is entirely declarative, meaning there is no need for a permanent uBOL process for the filtering to occur, and CSS/JS injection-based content filtering is performed reliably by the browser itself rather than by the extension. This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing -- uBOL's service worker process is required only when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages. Other users have also noted this fact: https://malwaretips.com/threads/ublock-origin-mv2-no-longer-featured-extension-in-chrome-web-store.131828/#post-1091626 It is also important to consider what has long been known,too many extensions slow down the browser. Edited June 30 by Sampei.Nihira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 24 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said: uBlock Origin Lite is certainly faster than uBlock Origin I really don't think that is true. Maybe for the latest-and-greatest of each. But I use uBO v1.26.2 (intentionally!). I'll try to "vet" uBO Lite again. But the last time I tried it, it was not faster than v1.26.2. I'm open for suggestions of quantifiable benchmarking between the two - that web site doesn't even indicate what VERSION was tested and I find that to be a tad misleading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampei.Nihira Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extensions-website-performance Quote Methodology To collect the performance data we tested each Chrome extension on 4 different websites. We ran each test 5 times and reported the median value. The test environment was an n2-standard-2 virtual machine on Google Cloud. To collect the data we used Puppeteer and Google’s Lighthouse tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 I'm big into squeezing the turnip for performance gains. Some of us use XP because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. Some of us use 10 because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. et cetera... If we go by Speedomter 2.1, in order of slowest to fastest with identical lists and no other extension other then uBO -- Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.58.0 MV2 == 98.9 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.26.2 == 99.3 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO Lite 2024.6.26.1308 MV3 == 106 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v94 + uBO 1.26.2 == 117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v114 + uBO 1.26.2 == 150 !!! v114 is by far the fastest browser that I have benchmarked !!! But ironically it includes "features" that I either need to upgrade to gain access to my credit card statement and USPS Mail Hold or DOWNGRADE to v94 thru v101 (v102 is the first to force these two web sites to require "latest and greatest"). v102 is also the "oldest" version that I can use for a YouTube Enhancer extension I used to use, turns out I'm liking "ImprovedYouTube" extension better anyway and it runs on v94 (my current default until "they" break it in their ongoing "quest"). I'm thankful that at least for now, I was able to DOWNGRADE browser version instead of the direction "they" want us to go, LOL. Edited June 30 by NotHereToPlayGames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Do we know who pushes uBO light? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Probably not what you meant, but around here, one guy really pushes it. https://msfn.org/board/topic/183974-ublock-origin-lite-mv3-vs-adguard-mv3-chromium-extensions/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/184322-narrowing-down-my-default-browser-for-my-win10-setups/?do=findComment&comment=1236267 https://msfn.org/board/topic/184046-future-of-chrome-on-windows-7/?do=findComment&comment=1228761 https://msfn.org/board/topic/186133-thorium/?do=findComment&comment=1265817 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampei.Nihira Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 (edited) You guys do as you please. I don't criticize those who look for features in chromium-based browsers that are easily obtained in firefox-based browsers. Or those who prefer to use obsolete OS and browsers. Use your favorite extensions. Have you installed 40/50/60 of them? I personally don't care about. You have your own conclusions. I have my own conclusions. Whoever prefers to live in the past and is happy.........Is not and never will be my problem. Edited July 1 by Sampei.Nihira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 5 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said: Or those who prefer to use obsolete OS and browsers. Um... Isn't that 99% of the entire MSFN membership? I don't have anything "against" uBO Lite. But just like my preferred uMatrix + Proxomitron isn't for everyone, nobody can really claim uBO Lite is "for everyone" either. I have always always ALWAYS maintained that browser (and extension) preference is wholly and completely PERSONAL PREFERENCE - there will NEVER be "one size fits all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampei.Nihira Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 (edited) UBO lite is not for everyone. I have experimented with UBO Lite in Firefox and in my opinion it is not suitable for Firefox. I have sent my findings (which I will not publish here) to the appropriate people. UBO Lite works best paired with DNS ads/trackers blocker and in this forum probably almost no one uses this method. So it is possible to conclude that in this forum only an infinitesimal percentage of users can use UBO Lite satisfactorily. P.S. But from my point of view always an infinitesimal percentage of forum members use UBO to the best of their ability. With dynamic filtering enabled. Edited July 1 by Sampei.Nihira 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampei.Nihira Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 New Tab Page in Edge is a privacy/functionality nightmare. I am forced to use an extension (even for my old habits). It is highly possible that even these extensions have a negative effect on the speed of opening web pages. The study done by DebugBear (the extension I use instead of the native New Tab Page feature is not listed) probably made me realize that there could be an overlapping, negative, effect on performance. So I reduced the heaviness of the native New Tab Page feature of my browser and still use the same extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karla Sleutel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 "uBlock origin is definitely more powerful than Ublock Origin Lite. You can run both at the same time since they don't use the same API, but it's useless, especially on Brave." https://www.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/1drsl17/ublock_origin_or_ublockorigin_lite_in_2024/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karla Sleutel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Isn't that 99% of the entire MSFN membership? Exactly, despite my age, I use my father's era OS Vista! One of the reasons I joined. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now