Alex313031
Chrome 114 now has the same performance as Thorium
Since it uses Maglev compiler on it, it has huge performance imporvement. Do Thorium still have confidence to beat it?
(Left Thorium Right Chrome 114)
Comparing different versions is not accurate and reliable.
Thorium constantly adjusts the optimization parameters according to the actual situation.
Also, not as many optimizations as possible is better.
@People-11
@gz83 This is true, however, the versions are close enough that I think it still shows that Chromium has caught up in terms of performance, which is a good thing, but I also always want to beat it lolol.
@People-11 Are you using thorium 112 or 113 for these screenshots.
@Alex313031 I am using Throium 112.0.5615.166 AVX2 since 113 is not yet available for AVX2.
@People-11 Ok i brought in some optimizations from @RobRich999 that should improve performance
@People-11 Ok i brought in some optimizations from @RobRich999 that should improve performance @Alex313031 did you push these optimizations to AVX2 yet? also, any idea when we might get 113 for AVX2?
The optimization parameters will be passed into the BUILD.gn file of different architectures or instruction sets. In addition, I will compile the avx2 version for windows system in the near future.
@rohitsaha29
got it, so I should just wait on you to update the AVX2 download to the new optimizations/113?
@gz83
The new AVX2 version has been compiled, please wait patiently for Alex to release them
@rohitsaha29
@People-11 Hi and thanks for those screenshots! As you already wrote M114 introduces Maglev:
It reduces overall CPU time to compile code while also saving battery life. Our measurements show Maglev has provided a 7.5 percent improvement on Jetstream and a 5 percent improvement in Speedometer.
via https://blog.chromium.org/2023/06/how-chrome-achieved-high-scores-on.html
So, in this case it is not fair to compare Thorium M113 with Chrom* 114.
Let's wait for M114 and compare again :)
Can’t wait for the newest versions (114 AVX2 & 114 MacOS) hopefully they’re soooon
Miserably, Thorium M114 for MacOS ARM64 lacks behind Chrome M114 about ~10%. We don't know what Google is doing differently for building their browser right now.
Can't test MacOS x64.
Please post other OS builds in here if you like.
Windows 10 19045.3031 AMD 3600 + NVIDIA RTX 2060 The browser closes all extensions and turns on the incognito mode test.
Chrome 114.0.5735.134
1、Speedometer 2.1 268、267、268
2、JetStream 2.1 200.082、201.225、198.443
3、Motion 1.2 1873.09、1895.70、1883.01
Thorium AVX2 114.0.5735.134
1、Speedometer 2.1 251、252、253
2、JetStream 2.1 201.288、198.834、198.525
3、Motion 1.2 1936.15、1956.73、1942.66
Speedometer Chrome is 6.2% higher than Thorium, JetStream is basically the same, Motion Thorium is 3.2% higher than Chrome
Also tested RobRich999's 117 version of Chromium, Speedometer three scores 260, 258, 260, or Chrome is higher.
My dev build is three major revisions ahead, so that makes for a big YMMV on performance numbers. Of note I also only benchmark my builds on Linux, and even then it is mostly rather casual. I do not have much use for Windows.
Ideally we probably should be generating our own PGO profiles when changing the SIMD baseline. Function counts should be the same, but we are altering functions, so.... yeah. ?? It is just annoying and time consuming to do. Been there, done that back in the MSVC days of Chromium on Windows.
Both are 114.0.5735.134, Left is Chrome and Right is Thorium
The higher benchmark score for Chrome than before is due to high performance mode enabled to ensure the benchmark is not affected by throttling.
Guys providing these pics with insane numbers, describe your hardware.
Went curious and ran this test myself: on my i7-10xxx intel video it's 142/172 in speedtest (chrome/thorium). The difference is even visually noticeable. While rendering in Chrome seems smoother (not faster, just smoother), video is noticeably sluggish.
@dmig Yeah with the newest Thorium version, I have noticed the same things (thumbnails or videos seems sluggish and buggy while scrolling or loading). Haven’t really tested chrome yet as I thought it would just fix over time. 113 thorium didn’t have these types of “issues” however.
I am using stock flags besides enable dark mode, prominent dark mode and tab muting flags. same extensions on both. Win10,i7-13700k, 2080ti.
Thorium 119.0.6045.214 AVX2 (left) vs. Chrome 120.0.6099.200
Just for reference bcs the versions don't match.
@People-11 Thanks. It is not going to be super accurate, but this does show that me and/or @RobRich999 can work to eek out some more performance out of Chromium.
MBP M1 @ macOS 13.6.3 test results:
Chrome Stable 120.0.6099.216 arm64
Thorium 119.0.6045.214 arm64
Chrome Canary 122.0.6253.0 arm64 gives 457
Just for the stats.
https://github.com/Alex313031/Thorium-Win/issues/168
It is quite similar to this issue. In addition, browser performance varies from person to person, so we do not need to spend too much time testing it.
@People-11
OK, I will stop sending results here unless theres big performance improvement.
@People-11 There is nothing wrong with posting testing results.
Would be nice to have them on https://thorium.rocks/performance for a variety of devices, as written in https://github.com/Alex313031/Thorium-Win/issues/168#issuecomment-1954707532