Updated µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared (markdown)

Raymond Hill 2014-08-25 19:22:28 -07:00
parent c2494ffcb0
commit 8f484a6470

@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ 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 is background page), 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 (above is background page CPU usage).
I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above is 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).
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 than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it has the right approach to implementing cosmetic filters.
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.
### Related wiki pages