Chrome uses more power than it needs to

[infamous_last]

Hundreds of things around the house wasting more power, standby power on amps, tvs, chargers, routers etc

Incandescent lights chew ridiculous amounts of power, worry about stuff like that first.

[ijKs Snow]

I think people misunderstood this article.

 

The reason this is bad is because, it uses extra resources at idle.

 

Sure, we all want the fastest experience possible when we browse the interwebs, but do you really want your PC draining power just because you didn't close Chrome before getting up from your seat to go eat lunch?

 

The fact is, most of us don't close our browser, we may minimize it, but most of us just leave it open because we are too lazy to close the 15 tabs we left open.

 

The other problem is that Google knew about this problem since 2010, but dismissed it, rather promoted it to be the fastest browser. We all just assumed it must have been the uber coding optimization that Google engineers have magically brewed up.

 

I personally find it annoying that even if my computer is left at idle or sleeping, it uses 25% more power then it should be using.

[bcredeur97]

wait so if i open chrome and firefox at the same time, firefox will be much faster than chrome?

[meatdeluxe]

[Exia]

Perhaps I will tune down my overclock and save some electricity from there to  compensate for my chrome that is running 24/7

[GoodBytes]

Very true to what @ijks said.

The other problem is that Google knew about this problem since 2010, but dismissed it, rather promoted it to be the fastest browser. We all just assumed it must have been the uber coding optimization that Google engineers have magically brewed up.

I personally find it annoying that even if my computer is left at idle or sleeping, it uses 25% more power then it should be using.

Google dismiss it because doing what they have done, is something you do very much so on purpose. Google wanted to get the edge.

That is why Chrome is currently the only web browser that doesn't support color profiled images, all to get the fastest rendering time.

And that is just what I have identified in web site development. Who knows the entire list of things being skipped or quickly rendered to trick its way for a slight edge on performance.

[Askew]

Very true to what @ijks said.

Google dismiss it because doing what they have done, is something you do very much so on purpose. Google wanted to get the edge.

That is why Chrome is currently the only web browser that doesn't support color profiled images, all to get the fastest rendering time.

And that is just what I have identified in web site development. Who knows the entire list of things being skipped or quickly rendered to trick its way for a slight edge on performance.

 

Do you think that Chrome is the only browser that does this?

[GoodBytes]

Do you think that Chrome is the only browser that does this?

Well, Firefox is open source, and no one raised a flag. I don't think they are doing this.

IE11 has been rated by reviewers to be the most lightweight full web browser on the desktop environment, and consumes the least amount of power (electricity) compared the other popular web browsers, so definitely not doing it.

As for Safari, I don't know. Don't think Apple cares.

Maybe Opera.. I haven't seen power consumption of that web browser in the reviews I read, so I don't know.

[vorticalbox]

Well, Firefox is open source, and no one raised a flag. Do I don't think they are doing this.

IE11 has been rated by reviewers to be the most lightweight full web browser on the desktop environment, and consumes the least amount of power (electricity) compared the other popular web browsers, so definitely not doing it.

As for Safari, I don't know. Don't think Apple cares.

Maybe Opera.. I haven't sen power consumption of that web browser in the reviews I read, so I don't know.

 

Firefox being open source isn't a valid argument when Chrome is also open source.

 

http://www.chromium.org/

 

 

Also people are saying it "slows down" the pc when really it speeds it up, it literally forces the CPU to work harder making it faster in the task you are dong which is using chrome, which is what chrome is good for right? speed.

[unlockthewood]

Is chromium any different than chrome

[GoodBytes]

Firefox being open source isn't a valid argument when Chrome is also open source.

 

http://www.chromium.org/

 

 

Also people are saying it "slows down" the pc when really it speeds it up, it literally forces the CPU to work harder making it faster in the task you are dong which is using chrome, which is what chrome is good for right? speed.

Chrome is not Chromium. Chrome is based on Chromium, but not Chromium.

I don't know about the second part. I didn't hear that. But my guess, assuming true, is that it screws up with the Windows process scheduler (the complex system that give CPU time to each process).

[ijKs Snow]

Firefox being open source isn't a valid argument when Chrome is also open source.

 

http://www.chromium.org/

 

 

Also people are saying it "slows down" the pc when really it speeds it up, it literally forces the CPU to work harder making it faster in the task you are dong which is using chrome, which is what chrome is good for right? speed.

I've made a post on why I think people are misunderstanding the current issue at hand with what Chrome is doing.

 

Yes, I do fully agree that Chrome upticking the processor to provide faster response time IS a good thing and isn't a problem. Pretty much all other browsers do this when you ask for heavy tasking. For example IE upticks your processor to 1.000ms when you try to stream videos from Youtube and Netflix.

 

The problem at hand currently is the fact that Chrome is upticking the processor REGARDLESS of you using the browser or not. Again, for example, IE downticks your processor as soon as you switch to light weight tasks like browsing, email, etc.

 

This creates a inherent problem as to leaving your computer idle or sleeping, yet your processor is banging away at nothing even though there is no input commands being sent to your PC in the first place. The problem is we don't like to close our browsers. Most of us have our email accounts opened, youtube tabs, forum tabs, etc. and we just leave as is. The fact that Chrome upticks your processor the moment you open it till you close the application equals to an unneeded use of resources that shouldn't exist. It was a simple fix back in 2010, and Google has let it proceed till now.

[Misanthrope]

The race to idle stuff is more relevant for laptops and such when even a tiny difference can matter. Which makes me think: Does this happens on the Android version of Chrome at well? Or even more important, Chrome under ChromeOS? Because that could be construed as unfair. 

[Do-me]

Except when it leaks it, the thing has so many leaks the efficiently hardly matters.

except it's been fixed 15 patches over

[Misanthrope]

except it's been fixed 15 patches over

 

I've experienced memory leaks more recently than that though but it is possible that is a lot more stable for more people now. I still find other annoyances however, in fact I find annoyances with ALL browsers: When I'm not enraged I tend to think that this is simply a consequence of more of our computer lives now moving inside a browser. In the past I distinctly remember using a browser, a video player, an audio player, and email client, and instant messenger client, a chat client, etc. Now I do all of that inside a browser, to the point that I even find it annoying to open up an external application like Spotify and if possible I rather just play music from youtube or grooveshark.

So now that we're loading our browsers more heavily we're seeing some regressions, more memory leaks, etc.

[Nicktrance]

I used to run firefox exculsively for several years, I switched out about 2 years ago mostly for the convenience of syncing to android devices and overall higher quality of addons and I still prefer it overall although I might switch to firefox (or maybe even IE) on my laptop just for when I'm on battery.

[Speedstack79]

On laptops I install firefox, on my computer I use chrome... I am using firefox right now but that is because I am using a restricted version of ubuntu, as soon as I get my hard drive back I am switching right back to chrome, it is just faster for me

[Buckley]

I have too many passwords saved on chrome to switch to Firefox. Chrome it is

[GoodBytes]

I have too many passwords saved on chrome to switch to Firefox. Chrome it is

Don't quote me on this, but I think Firefox can do that when you first run it.

[zanginator]

I use opera, after I was using chrome and just gave up on how slow it was making my laptop, even when only 2 tabs were open and it was in the background. I find opera is a lot better on my laptop, and doesn't freeze it or cause any issues.

 

Was worried going through this thread, thinking "Why is there no love for Opera". Although the resource usage is not an issue for me, Opera in my experience is by far the lightest on resources.

[Buckley]

Don't quote me on this, but I think Firefox can do that when you first run it.

it does! but none of them ever transfer which is why i stay

[theroflcopta]

I honestly don't mind. I mean if there was a slider that was "Use less of your power for a slower experience <------------> Use more of your power for faster experience" That bitch would be slid all the way to the right.

[Skander1345]

I'm okay with this, it's the fastest and most stable browser around. But that comes with insane RAM and power consumption. That's OK.

 

I'd rather use a fast browser than a slower one for a 25% power increase.

 

Firefox is nice but just didn't work great for me, it's fast when it wants to and slow when it feels like it, crashes for no reason after updates and then decides it wants to be stable again.

[IlDuceSaint]

netscape master race, well, was master race

[Redheadsrule13]

Well that explains a lot. Whenever I use Chrome with on my PC with a shitty Pentium G, it uses way more of my CPU than is reasonable. I also get a weird thing where Chrome pages will just not display/load for a couple second when I go to a given tab, I have to wait for it, then it'll work normally. I think it might be something to do with the Dev channel, but I dunno. 
This is still kind of bullshit though. Have some love for the dual core users Chrome!