Does Firefox really use less RAM than Chrome?

bybb

Ok, so I was getting annoyed at high RAM usage by Chrome so I installed firefox.
On a blank tab Chrome and Firefox both use around 150MB - 200MB of RAM. Firefox used the while 200MB in one process while chrome was 4 processes each using ~50MB.

On Youtube home page after signing in Firefox has two processes: one using 200MB of RAM and the other using 100MB of RAM. 300MB in total.
Chrome uses 260MB of RAM in 5 processes. (That's with Scratch forums AND Youtube open!)

While watching a video Firefox uses 340MB of RAM. Chrome uses 360MB of RAM. (Scratch AND Youtube)

With Scratch and Youtube open firefox uses 430MB of RAM.

Am I doing something wrong? I thought Firefox was supposed to be super lightweight compared to Chrome?

After browing for a bit Firefox on a blank tab uses 320MB of RAM.

Magnie

bybb wrote:
Ok, so I was getting annoyed at high RAM usage by Chrome so I installed firefox.
On a blank tab Chrome and Firefox both use around 150MB - 200MB of RAM. Firefox used the while 200MB in one process while chrome was 4 processes each using ~50MB.

On Youtube home page after signing in Firefox has two processes: one using 200MB of RAM and the other using 100MB of RAM. 300MB in total.
Chrome uses 260MB of RAM in 5 processes. (That's with Scratch forums AND Youtube open!)

While watching a video Firefox uses 340MB of RAM. Chrome uses 360MB of RAM. (Scratch AND Youtube)

With Scratch and Youtube open firefox uses 430MB of RAM.

Am I doing something wrong? I thought Firefox was supposed to be super lightweight compared to Chrome?

After browing for a bit Firefox on a blank tab uses 320MB of RAM.

I wouldn't try too hard figuring out which one uses less RAM. Originally it was Firefox that used less, more or less because it used a single process whereas Chrome used multiple processes for better stability. Now Firefox is switching to multiprocess ('e10s' or ‘electrolysis’ is the code name) and that is blurring the lines a little more. Right now all the browsers are pretty close to each other in performance that it's just up to your tastes. I tell people to use Chrome though because they are more up to date in regards to security and that is becoming a bigger issue recently.

Last edited by Magnie (May 1, 2017 17:49:54)

nathanprocks

Chrome has become more efficient in the past few versions. Version 55 introduced some optimisations to the V8 JavaScript engine that significantly reduced memory usage. It's really nothing to worry about unless you're always running low on memory. Many often say “Free RAM is wasted RAM”, but that isn't entirely true. The OS will use as much RAM as possible for caching so that programs load faster, so it is good to have a few GBs free.

My computer has 16GB of RAM. I'm running Chrome v60 with 22 tabs currently open and it is only using 1.4GB. I do have “The Great Suspender” extension installed, so many of those tabs aren't using much. I'd recommend installing that extension if you always open pages and don't get around to reading them for ~2 years.

Ex0gen

I don't mind that Chrome uses so much ram, it using one process for each tab makes the browser much more stable.

It isn't much of a problem that is is made to be unless your running hundreds of tabs at the same time.

Darkwren

Try building Chromium from source: it probably uses much less than normal Chrome does.

__init__

Ex0gen wrote:
it using one process for each tab makes the browser much more stable.

I've actually experienced the opposite effect: in Firefox's conventional single-process mode the browser rarely, if ever, hangs up as it's more stable overall, while with Chrome, I've had a lot of “page not responding” dialogs that pop up and don't kill the page or anything, leaving the browser to slow down to the point where nothing is usable, not even the close button. Even on the rare occasion when Firefox does hang, it hangs on the system level, leaving you with a “force close” button on most operating systems. I find this much more useful.

Add the fact that single-process uses a significantly less amount of RAM, and single process makes much more sense to me.

__init__

nathanprocks wrote:
I'm running Chrome v60 with 22 tabs currently open and it is only using 1.4GB.

-stache-

bybb wrote:
After browing for a bit Firefox on a blank tab uses 320MB of RAM.

leek: Wikimedia commons

Last edited by -stache- (May 4, 2017 23:49:54)

happyland440

Interesting. Very interesting.

__init__

39 tabs on FF 53, using ~700 MB.

bybb

__init__ wrote:
Ex0gen wrote:
it using one process for each tab makes the browser much more stable.
I've actually experienced the opposite effect: in Firefox's conventional single-process mode the browser rarely, if ever, hangs up as it's more stable overall, while with Chrome, I've had a lot of “page not responding” dialogs that pop up and don't kill the page or anything, leaving the browser to slow down to the point where nothing is usable, not even the close button. Even on the rare occasion when Firefox does hang, it hangs on the system level, leaving you with a “force close” button on most operating systems. I find this much more useful.

Add the fact that single-process uses a significantly less amount of RAM, and single process makes much more sense to me.

Chrome only ever does weird things when Im at 100% CPU usage. Lego Worlds does this the most because of its complex terrain generation.

nathanprocks

Darkwren wrote:
Try building Chromium from source: it probably uses much less than normal Chrome does.

That won't make any noticeable different afaik. The only differences in Chromium is the lack of proprietary codecs (required for streaming MP3, AAC, and H.264 formats), no built in Flash Player, no tracking (usage statistics and crash logs sent to Google), no automatic updates. You have to rebuild every time you want the latest version, and that can take a really long time depending on your hardware (and uses a lot of RAM).

__init__ wrote:
with Chrome, I've had a lot of “page not responding” dialogs that pop up and don't kill the page or anything, leaving the browser to slow down to the point where nothing is usable, not even the close button.

When that happens to me (not often), clicking the close button on the tab usually works. Sometimes it takes several seconds to close. I'd rather not kill my entire browser just because a single tab hangs. I usually run Chrome for weeks before I restart it or my computer for updates or other reasons.

__init__ wrote:
nathanprocks wrote:
I'm running Chrome v60 with 22 tabs currently open and it is only using 1.4GB.

Yes. Here's my current memory usage for Chrome:

As I said before, many of my tabs are suspended. The suspended tabs all run in a single process.

MegaApuTurkUltra

nathanprocks wrote:
__init__ wrote:
nathanprocks wrote:
I'm running Chrome v60 with 22 tabs currently open and it is only using 1.4GB.
Yes. Here's my current memory usage for Chrome:
https://i.cubeupload.com/1k5xMk.png
As I said before, many of my tabs are suspended. The suspended tabs all run in a single process.

whoosh

__init__

nathanprocks wrote:
__init__ wrote:
with Chrome, I've had a lot of “page not responding” dialogs that pop up and don't kill the page or anything, leaving the browser to slow down to the point where nothing is usable, not even the close button.
When that happens to me (not often), clicking the close button on the tab usually works. Sometimes it takes several seconds to close. I'd rather not kill my entire browser just because a single tab hangs. I usually run Chrome for weeks before I restart it or my computer for updates or other reasons.

It never works for me. I always have to go into Task Manager or htop to kill it when it hangs up. As well, it's much more rare (in my experience) for Firefox to hang than Chrome, and its new Quantum thing is supposed to make it even more stable. I've had Chrome hang up on the new tab page when running a bunch of other programs.

__init__ wrote:
nathanprocks wrote:
I'm running Chrome v60 with 22 tabs currently open and it is only using 1.4GB.
Yes. Here's my current memory usage for Chrome:
https://i.cubeupload.com/1k5xMk.png
As I said before, many of my tabs are suspended. The suspended tabs all run in a single process.

Has it ever occurred to you that 1.4GB might be a bit much for a single process?

Remember when 2GB was the standard for RAM?

nathanprocks

__init__ wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that 1.4GB might be a bit much for a single process?

Remember when 2GB was the standard for RAM?

It's not a single process though. But yes, I get your point.

I remember when our family PC had 512MB RAM (DDR-400). Eventually upgraded to 2GB and installed a GPU. That was plenty for running Chrome on Windows 7, before I got my own laptop. I guess Chrome does have a lot more features and uses more memory now.
Now I'm using it to dual boot MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 7. MS-DOS 6 can only access 64MB RAM.

Also, websites tend to be much larger and bloated these days with massive JavaScript frameworks, responsive stylesheets, infinite scrolling, etc. A couple of years ago when I still used Facebook, I'd scroll for a while and the tab would end up using 2GB.

-Vuton-

I think chrome seems to use LESS for me!

BookOwl

Right now with 42(!) tabs open Firefox is using 1.72 gigs of memory 573 MB of “compressed memory”

My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.11, Firefox 53.0, Flash 25.0 (release 0)

Last edited by BookOwl (May 6, 2017 13:53:31)

Icey29

Yes.

__init__

121 tabs and 1.2GB. My browser / operating system: Windows NT 10.0, Firefox 53.0, Flash 25.0 (release 0)

nathanprocks

__init__ wrote:
121 tabs and 1.2GB. My browser / operating system: Windows NT 10.0, Firefox 53.0, Flash 25.0 (release 0)

How much RAM do you have? It would be unfair to compare the two without testing them both with the same specs.

I've been browsing around in Firefox for the past hour. Currently I have 44 tabs open (+ 3 extensions) and it is using 3.5GB. If I had a “tab suspender” installed and suspend most of the tabs, it would probably be similar in memory usage to Chrome.

My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.12, Firefox 53.0, No Flash version detected

Discuss Scratch