Updated µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared (markdown)

µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles.
+Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each extension were tested alone, as the only extension present.
 
 ### Own memory footprint
 
@@ -12,8 +12,18 @@ These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and µBlock _after_ they have
 
 Both extensions had _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's Ad Server_ list, and malware protection (there are more filters in µBlock for this last one).
 
-####
-
 ### Added overhead to each net request
 
+ABP and µBlock need to process the URL of each net request against all the filters, and eventually tell the waiting browser whether the request should be cancelled or not. Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time critical part and determining whether the request should be allowed or not must be done as fast as possible.
+
+Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request in their respective `chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest` handler, using the same [benchmark](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark).
+
+##### Adblock Plus
+![ABP](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/abp-obr.png)
+
+##### µBlock
+![uBlock](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/ublock-obr.png)
+
+Fun fact: µBlock will actually execute more efficiently if you enable _ hpHosts’s Ad and tracking servers_, the timing of `chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest` goes below 185ms.
+
 ### Added memory footprint to web pages