From d8ec73f72107ebb773e97049abd84cfb47c5d193 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:27:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20=C2=B5Block=20vs.=20ABP:=20efficiency?= =?UTF-8?q?=20compared=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index fc14794..d3d66dd 100644 --- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ This is the benchmarks comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [ ![CPU benchmark](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/bgpage-cpu-si.comx10.png) -I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above benchmarks are for background pages), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drawn in a see of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than µBlock (3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage). +I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above benchmarks are for background pages), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drawn in a see of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than µBlock (2-3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage). Also, the amount of work µBlock does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given µBlock did much better CPU-wise than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it was a worst-case scenario for µBlock, and yet it did its job of hiding elements between 2 and 3 times faster.