From d7a07b1beffe497dcc7b379f933812416b4216e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:15:50 -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 | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index fa0154c..8cc72ad 100644 --- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -84,7 +84,13 @@ The blue area represents how much more ABP itself consumes more memory than µBl ### Added CPU overhead to web pages -[Coming] +This is the benchmarks comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [si.com](https://www.si.com) ten times. Each page load was triggered after the previous page load completed. + +**Top:** Adblock Plus 1.8.3. **Bottom:** µBlock 0.5.1.0. + +![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 much more than µBlock (3 to 1 ratio). 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. ### Related wiki pages