From 095ae02852fdba9cbf238cf2c085f4cb741ee812 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:42:13 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated uBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared (markdown) --- uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index 3effc2e..1d57b14 100644 --- a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -9,8 +9,6 @@ Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each - [Added memory footprint to web pages](#added-memory-footprint-to-web-pages) - [Added CPU overhead to web pages](#added-cpu-overhead-to-web-pages) -By the way, I need to dispel a silly myth given how often it surfaces: [Adblock Edge uses Adblock Plus filtering engine](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/abp-abe.png), so it is **not** more efficient than ABP. - ### Own memory footprint These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and uBlock _after_ they have gone through this rather [demanding benchmark](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark). Once the benchmark was completed, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in dev console) a couple of times -- this is an _important step_, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.