Google: Chrome has ceased to eat Rush Run on Mac and heated processor

Anonim

A couple of years ago, I forever refused Chrome in favor of Safari. I was annoyed by the browser of the Google browser, which consumed the pretty part of the available processor resource, RAM and wildly spinning my MacBook Air cooler. The computer tribal did not cope, although I usually do not keep open more than 10 tabs at the same time. From those Google released several major updates for Chrome, making it more economical and faster. But the most iconic changes occurred in Chrome 89, which became more responsive and stopped heating the Mac so much.

Google: Chrome has ceased to eat Rush Run on Mac and heated processor 8767_1
Google Chrome 89 has become better than before, but not yet reaching Safari

Apple has released an extension "ICloud passwords" for Chrome. Why it doesn't work

According to Google developers who have been working on updating Chrome 89, with its output, the browser has become noticeably less voracious, reducing the load on the central processor of Mac computers. Previously, it was the reason for the cooler's spinning while working with Chrome. The browser spent a lot of resources to ensure its work, warmed up the insides of the computer and provoked the activation of forced cooling than heavily annoyed users who were accustomed to working with their MacBook Air and MacBook Pro in full silence.

Chrome update for Mac

Google: Chrome has ceased to eat Rush Run on Mac and heated processor 8767_2
Chrome is a very voracious browser, but Google tries to keep it in the cord

The overall reduction in power consumption was about 65%, due to the computers working with Chrome, became less likely to activate the coolers, regardless of the supply of power to the battery. However, this is not all. Developers managed to free up to 100 MB with each open tab due to more efficient use of memory due to the Partitionallo-Everywhere mechanism, as well as increase their response to 22%. Thus, tabs in Chrome will open faster than before, saving the affordable iron resource.

Google Chrome spends 10 times more RAM than Safari

Obviously, Google is trying to more aggressively compete with Safari, which, recently, Mac users give greater preference. But this is understandable: Apple's brawl browser on MacOS Big Sur works 50% faster than Chrome. Despite the fact that it is usually trying to avoid comparisons with competitors, the company has demonstrated a striking chrome lag from Safari in the latter presentation. This difference was due to the effective use of JavaScript and some architectural differences that are critical.

Safari or Google Chrome

Google: Chrome has ceased to eat Rush Run on Mac and heated processor 8767_3
The last 3 CHROME updates allowed him to advance far forward in terms of speed and efficiency

Google is clearly understood that Safari surpasses Chrome, so lately added several advanced speed-oriented mechanisms into his browser and reduce resource consumption to his browser:

  • Back and Forward Cache - a mechanism that allows you to instantly download the page when returning back, pulling it out of the cache;
  • The JavaScript timer is a timer that counts time from the last appeal to the tab and freezes it if more than a minute passed;
  • Freeze-dried Tabs is a tool that makes a screen shot and loads it first if the page is heavy;
  • IsolatedSplits is a mechanism that supports only those web pages that are located in the user visibility zone that increases the download speed by 7%.

Google decided to make chrome as safe as Safari

What kind of result will give, time will tell. In the end, this is how immediately determine the increase in speed is quite difficult, since it is an extremely complex phenomenon, one layer of which is superimposed on another, forming a kind of factors sandwich. After all, it is logical that it is impossible to disperse Chrome by 50% by clicking the fingers. And Google implemented mechanisms are broken through the browser systemally, reduce its resource consumption and in general make it better. It would still do something with extensions, and it would be quite good.

Read more