Firefox performance on 6-core hyper-threaded CPU

Antnee

Antnee

Antnee

Associate
Joined
13 Feb 2009
Posts
42
Hi guys,

I have a question for any of you that use Firefox on modern CPUs that have many cores and hyper-threading type systems:

I'm currently running an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ with 6GB RAM and I run a LOT of tabs at a time (I work as a web/database developer). At the moment, my FF10 instance is running at 1.3GB and core usage for this process often bounces up to 100% (ie 50% total). Admittedly I use a lot of plugins like Firebug that are performance hogs, but hear me out....

Anyway, I have an i7-3930k upgrade due next week, along with 32GB RAM. In general I know that this will be a HUGE improvement over my current PC, but since Firefox still doesn't appear to be able to properly take advantage of highly multi-threaded CPUs, I'm wondering what switching to a 6-core hyper-threaded machine will do to my FF performance.

I know some people will already be itching to say "use Chrome", "use Safari" or "use Opera" (OK, maybe not so much the last two) and the honest truth is that I do use all of them (kinda have to, you know? IE too) but I find FF is the best for productivity. Chrome's debugging tools aren't as good, for a start.

Anyway, browser preference aside, how do you guys find FF performance on machines with CPUs more like the one that should be turning up next week?

Cheers all
 
The biggest performance boost for heavy duty browsers like FF is to install a 64bit version like WaterFox. This will improve memory and rendering performance especially with many tabs.

Secondly, or possibly firstly, even....the OS drive should be an SSD. Firefox/Waterfox will then do everything instantly and always be available on tap regardless of how many tabs are open.

My FF might use 2.2GB of RAM when browsing some media threads on some forums but it never consumes much CPU power on my i5 2500K.
 
Good to know. Not comfortable with SSDs just yet (that's a whole other story) but I'm definitely going to go that way one day soon.

I tried the MineField FF beta a while back but extension compatibility was awful. Has that improved now? If so then I'll definitely give something like Waterfox (which I'd never heard of, admittedly) a shot. Cheers
 
Waterfox is compatible with any extension that works in normal firefox. There are many ways to force extension compatibility too.

Firebug is a very well known hog though so maybe reconsider its use.
 
It is, and FF10 has finally got a built in inspector which is long overdue, but it's not Firebug. As power-hungry as Firebug is, it's also essential for 90% of all full-time devs
 
Trying Waterfox at the moment. Unfortunately v10 isn't yet available according to their website, but yes, it does appear to be faster so far. Also, oddly, my memory usage seems a lot lower after a similar amount of time using it as when I was using FF10 this morning. CPU usage is definitely better so far.

Maybe FF10 has reintroduced the legendary FF memory leaks that they've been claiming to have resolved for a few versions now?
 
I just stopped using it round about version 6/7.

I would open up 3 tabs and be sat on 2GB RAM usage, my machine only had 4GB.

I really felt the performance hit when loading up BF3.. this game has to be launched through the browser, so it would cripple my performance.

Yes i know i could close FF, but it was annoying when i wanted to change servers, or access battlelog again for any reason.

So just went back to Opera, no complains.

EDIT:

But seeing as FF 10 appears to be much more efficient, I'll give Waterfox 10 a go when it's released.
 
JimAroo said:
I just stopped using it round about version 6/7.

I would open up 3 tabs and be sat on 2GB RAM usage, my machine only had 4GB.

I really felt the performance hit when loading up BF3.. this game has to be launched through the browser, so it would cripple my performance.

Yes i know i could close FF, but it was annoying when i wanted to change servers, or access battlelog again for any reason.

So just went back to Opera, no complains.

EDIT:

But seeing as FF 10 appears to be much more efficient, I'll give Waterfox 10 a go when it's released.
Click to expand...

2GB for FF alone?

I have never seen fire/water fox to use that much RAM, even with 30 tabs opened and the high res screenshot thread, most is 1.4GB. For me chrome uses more memory than fire/water fox with my usual addons etc. installed and about 5-10 tabs opened.

You must have had a bad addon installed or something eating memory up.


As for BF 3 and all, I (and quite a few other people here) HAD to upgrade to 8GB from 4GB, even using chrome just for battlelog, usage was hitting 97%

Also the battlelog plugin doesn't work with 64 bit browsers yet, so will just have to use some other browser when you want to launch a game.


Slightly off topic but, I am liking the Australis theme with a few tweaks, nice change from stratiform :)
 
Nexus18 said:
As for BF 3 and all, I (and quite a few other people here) HAD to upgrade to 8GB from 4GB, even using chrome just for battlelog, usage was hitting 97%
Click to expand...

Yep, in the end i just upgraded to 8GB, cost me like £35.. I would have been crazy not to.

I'm keen to try one of the 64 Bit browsers now i have the RAM to spare.
 
I upgraded from 8GB to 16GB for BF3 as I like to leave Photoshop open so I can quickly return to it after a good jihad jeep :p
 
Antnee said:
Anyway, browser preference aside, how do you guys find FF performance on machines with CPUs more like the one that should be turning up next week?
Click to expand...

Firefox can only utilise one CPU core (plus an additional one for any plugins which are running, e.g. Flash). It won't really be any quicker on a 6-core machine than on a 2-core machine.

Firefox still has a single-process architecture (apart from plugins), which is one area in which it's fallen behind Chrome and IE. In Firefox, pages are rendered in the same process as the UI, which means that opening lots of complex pages tends to make the UI lag. It's inherent to the single-process design, and can't really change until Firefox finally catches up with Chrome/IE in this respect.

That's one of the reasons why I switched to Chrome for everyday browsing. Mozilla do have a plan to implement this, but they seem to be dragging their heels a little.
 
Mattus said:
Firefox can only utilise one CPU core (plus an additional one for any plugins which are running, e.g. Flash). It won't really be any quicker on a 6-core machine than on a 2-core machine..
Click to expand...
Exactly, this is why I'm asking. I know my current PC is OLD, but I also know that some high core-count CPUs sacrificed clock-speed per core in order to offer more threads (I'm thinking like the UltraSPARC-T1 here). I'm assuming that each individual core (or should I say, thread) on the i7-3930k is considerably more powerful than each core on my X2-6000? If not, then my FF will still be problematic.

I do agree completely that IE and Chrome have MUCH better support for multiple threads etc, but Chrome crashes more often than a 17-year old who just passed his test and runs his car on remoulds. It also doesn't have the necessary plugins that I use for work. I do use Chrome, and to a lesser extent Opera, Safari and IE, but FF is my primary browser and needs to be for the time being.

BTW, Waterfox instance now up to 1.4GB and the CPU usage keeps hitting maximum. It does however feel a little faster. Not sure if that's my imagination or not. I suspect a lot of this is down to multiple Google Apps loaded in tabs (spreadsheets, GMail etc) and Plesk control panels for our servers. However, I've been using FF like this for a long time and it just seems to be getting worse!
 
In Opera I disable ALL disk based storage (20Mb DSL...do not need it) and let it store everything in memory.

Makes a huge difference. Would try to do the same in FF if you can.
 
Good to know. I've also tried some tips I've found online for limiting the maximum RAM that FF can utilise, but that failed miserably. It's great that it holds the history of every tab that I've opened, even after closing the window, reopening and restoring tabs, but it would be lovely to find a way to say "only hold the last 10 pages" maybe. No solution I've tried seems to actually work. It's quite frustrating!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom