From 1814d0c9187c9369141ba2c6584b1d36f7d9f410 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gorhill Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:23:03 -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, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared.md b/µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared.md index 61b8491..f731701 100644 --- a/µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared.md +++ b/µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared.md @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ 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 dispel a 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 as ABP. + ### Own memory footprint These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and µBlock _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.