TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Thorium – The first browser to score over 600 speedometer points on a Mac M3 Pro

72 点作者 midzer超过 1 年前

7 条评论

olliej超过 1 年前
Oh, it&#x27;s just chromium with I&#x27;m guessing some questionable PGO choices and similar.<p>I can&#x27;t speak for blink&#x2F;chromium, but as I spent most of a decade working on webkit and JSC, there are lots of trade offs for performance that can heavily benefit benchmarks without benefitting real web content.<p><pre><code> * First off PGO. You have to be very careful when you do profile guided optimization as you _could_ simply do nothing but do the profiling passes on benchmarks, but if you aren&#x27;t testing actual web content you can pessimize actual page load performance (speedometer tries to be better at general browser perf than older benchmarks but you easily fall into a trap equivalent to making your browser the fastest at loading gmail but slower at yahoo mail :D) * A lot of modern browser performance comes as a result of caching policy, not in the download sense, but internal data structures. For example many years ago when I implemented bytecode caching in JSC (literally JS string source-&gt;bytecode) which saves you parsing and codegen time, but uses a lot of memory. A lot of the qualification for enabling that was &quot;how much memory should be willing to burn in exchange for this performance&quot;, how time sensitive should the cache be, etc. Similarly you can get significant performance wins by making the GC heap large enough that you avoid sweeping during a benchmark. * Browsers also do a lot of event coalescing to try and minimize unnecessary dispatch costs, relayout, and repainting. You can generally adjust the coalescing policies and you can get good &quot;performance&quot; wins by increasing the coalescing windows, but the result can be perceivable lagginess and similar, but again it will help &quot;performance&quot; as measure by wall clock. </code></pre> There are many many trade offs beyond just these that impact performance, and those impact perceptual performance, wall time performance, memory usage (people complain about memory usage in modern browsers but you can improve wall time &quot;performance&quot; by increasing that even more), and power (which matters for any mobile device).<p>It should not be a surprise that you can configure a chromium build (or gecko, or webkit) that can &quot;out perform&quot; the default configuration at some [set of] benchmark[s], but you should ask yourself why in a field as performance sensitive as browser and js engines the developers aren&#x27;t already doing what you&#x27;ve done, and maybe the result of your changes is actually lower overall performance or otherwise worse user experience.
评论 #38896244 未加载
评论 #38896287 未加载
评论 #38903937 未加载
pxeger1超过 1 年前
Thorium is a fork of Chromium, optimised for speed.
评论 #38895285 未加载
评论 #38897344 未加载
RyanShook超过 1 年前
What are the security trade offs of Thorium?
attentive超过 1 年前
Notably they also have windows and linux builds. And linux build includes VAAPI Patch, Intel HD support patch, and VDPAU Patch. I am yet to test it but it might be a better linux chromium option than chromium or brave for GPU acceleration.
taosx超过 1 年前
Was not aware of Thorium, looks interesting. Now I&#x27;m wondering if node.js could benefit from some of these optimizations?
评论 #38896806 未加载
speps超过 1 年前
Oof that&#x27;s a read... <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;alex313031.blogspot.com&#x2F;2024&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-good-bad-and-ugly.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;alex313031.blogspot.com&#x2F;2024&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-good-bad-and-ugl...</a>
评论 #38895668 未加载
评论 #38895396 未加载
评论 #38895333 未加载
评论 #38896038 未加载
评论 #38897230 未加载
评论 #38895286 未加载
评论 #38897542 未加载
midzer超过 1 年前
For prove, screenshot in release notes at the bottom.
评论 #38895394 未加载
评论 #38894936 未加载