Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another



  • This is a mystery to me. I was excited to find Vivaldi and see how much faster than Firefox (56 or 57) it was when I tested it on my laptop. Then I installed it on Desktop and am disappointed.

    eg: I loaded 7 different sites, one at a time, first in Vivaldi on desktop, then Firefox on desktop, then Vivaldi on laptop, then Firefox on laptop. Then on to the next site. I simply counted the load times, 1 thousand, 2 thousand, etc. loading finished based on progress bars on each browser. Not a stop watch, but close enough for comparisons.

    On Desktop FF 57.0.53 was faster 5/7 times, total load times 86 sec, to Vivaldi’s 100sec. On laptop, Vivaldi was faster 6/7, with one tie. Vivaldi total load time 42 sec. vs FF v56.0.2, 63 sec. Clearly the desktop has a problem, because of the usb wireless adapter, or something else. Still, why Vivaldi faster than FF on laptop and but not on desktop is a mystery.

    btw: vivaldi has the same addons in both systems. the laptop system is running FF 56.0.2 with more addons, because FF 57 trashed most of the addons. Previous tests, using FF 56 and 57 on same system showed them same speed.


  • Moderator

    @astro46 Note that you can load an entire bookmark folder in one operation from the Panel.

    On my system, 10 pages loaded in less than 15 seconds. Some websites just need redesigning if seven of them take 86 seconds.


  • Moderator

    @astro46 Is this steam-driven hardware by any chance?

    My desktop loads everything in between 2 and 7 seconds on my two main desktop towers, and on my oldest junk laptop from a cold start, 24 seconds. What sort of hardware resources are you running this on? Do you use between 200 and 400 tabs perhaps?



  • @pesala said in Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another:

    @astro46 Note that you can load an entire bookmark folder in one operation from the Panel.

    On my system, 10 pages loaded in less than 15 seconds. Some websites just need redesigning if seven of them take 86 seconds.

    perhaps my post wasn't clear. I am not loading more than one site at a time. I loaded a site in ff, then same site in V. then a different site in V. and then switch to ff to load that site. While some websites may need redesigning, that wouldn't have an effect in comparing V vs FF on the same system.

    The question mostly about why V would be noticeably faster than FF on one system (my laptop) and slower on another (the desktop).



  • @ayespy said in Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another:

    @astro46 Is this steam-driven hardware by any chance?

    My desktop loads everything in between 2 and 7 seconds on my two main desktop towers, and on my oldest junk laptop from a cold start, 24 seconds. What sort of hardware resources are you running this on? Do you use between 200 and 400 tabs perhaps?

    I don't know what steam is. As I mentioned in post above, I am loading one site at a time. there may be 5-7 other tabs loaded at that time. However, it is the same for FF and V. they are on the same computer, with same sites open.

    The question is really about why I got such great results with V when comparing to Ff on the laptop, but it isn't happening on desktop . Both V and FF are dealing with the same system, whatever it may be.


  • Moderator

    @astro46 Steam is super-heated water, in vapor form. It's one of the earliest forms of power for engines driving motive transportation. A steam-driven computer would, by extension therefore, have to be a very old and primitive one. (It's a joke.)

    So you are opening a tab, waiting for it to load, opening another tab, waiting for it to load, and so on and that is what is taking so long?

    Hardware absolutely makes a difference in how well Vivaldi works. The more powerful the processor, the more available memory, the better it works IN GENERAL, but speed and efficiency are also affected by specific graphics hardware and drivers as well. The reason for this is that Chromium is de-listing or blacklisting more and more graphics hardware or drivers, and Chrome (the proprietary Google browser) does not share the patches it introduces to fix what is broken in Chromium. That means that Vivaldi has to figure out and implement its own patches, and that's a really hard slog. This means that Chrome works well, Chromium works less well, and any browser built on Chromium that does not use its full code and UI layer (in other words, Chromium knock-offs) work even less well on some hardware, until they can figure out all the patches - which Chromium sort of makes a point of breaking again, every six weeks or so with a new release.



  • @ayespy said in Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another:

    @astro46 Steam is super-heated water, in vapor form. It's one of the earliest forms of power for engines driving motive transportation. A steam-driven computer would, by extension therefore, have to be a very old and primitive one. (It's a joke.)

    So you are opening a tab, waiting for it to load, opening another tab, waiting for it to load, and so on and that is what is taking so long?

    Hardware absolutely makes a difference in how well Vivaldi works. The more powerful the processor, the more available memory, the better it works IN GENERAL, but speed and efficiency are also affected by specific graphics hardware and drivers as well. The reason for this is that Chromium is de-listing or blacklisting more and more graphics hardware or drivers, and Chrome (the proprietary Google browser) does not share the patches it introduces to fix what is broken in Chromium. That means that Vivaldi has to figure out and implement its own patches, and that's a really hard slog. This means that Chrome works well, Chromium works less well, and any browser built on Chromium that does not use its full code and UI layer (in other words, Chromium knock-offs) work even less well on some hardware, until they can figure out all the patches - which Chromium sort of makes a point of breaking again, every six weeks or so with a new release.

    LOL. isn't there a software program, or linux opsys, or something, called steam? I thought that you were referring to that.

    Graphics hardware and driver. Perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps Firefox works better with the Nvidia 7300 graphics card in the desktop than Vivaldi does. I know that Win10 wasn't happy about the 7300. Had to clean install win10, and then install a different nvidia driver to get the 7300 to work in win10. Or perhaps its something else.

    Just for fun, I just tried comparing V with Chrome. I found V generally faster loading 6 different sites. by 1 - 6 "sec".


  • Moderator

    @astro46 Yes. "Steam" is some kind of animation modeling software that gaming authors use.

    Otherwise... :)



  • @astro46

    Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another
    

    ...but on neither system will Firefox let you stack tabs, tile tabs, add Web Panels, add Notes, forensically examine History, support hierarchical speeddials, customise your UI scale, yada yada yada. Speed ain't everything.


  • Moderator

    @steffie Per some users, it's not everything. It's the only thing. For these, the purpose of a browser is not to accomplish anything. It's just to "be fast." They would go camping in a Jaguar coupe because a motorhome isn't fast enough.



  • @ayespy It's most puzzling, isn't it?



  • @steffie said in Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another:

    @astro46

    Vivaldi Faster than Firefox on one system, slower on another
    

    ...but on neither system will Firefox let you stack tabs, tile tabs, add Web Panels, add Notes, forensically examine History, support hierarchical speeddials, customise your UI scale, yada yada yada. Speed ain't everything.

    true. However loading pages is what users do with browsers, and when page load speeds become so slow that one thinks of stopping to read an email while it finishes, then load speeds increase in importance.

    Besides, this wasn't what my question was about.



  • Vivaldi is Defiantly Faster than FFq & SeaMonkey on Fedora 27 GNOME 3 8)

    FFq was faster than FF until the Meltdown fix :(
    Testing GNU Icecat... breaks lots of sites :(



  • @640k I like using a defiant browser.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.