• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Waterfox 36.0.4 is out!

So how is it different from vanilla FF?

If it's faster... is it 5% or 50%?

I suppose it could benefit from having lots of ram and 200+ tabs open at any given time. Other than that, I dunno. But I'll check that. Thanks Larry.
 
Last edited:
Since most of the browser benchmarks and meaningless... I have run my favorite one, - the Fish Bowl !!!11

I put 500 fishes in the tank, so my patient Kabini could produce two-digit numbers.

And the results are:

IE - 20 FPS
FireFox - 21 FPS
Waterfox - 22 FPS
Chrome - 42 FPS
Opera - 47 FPS

^ Latest official versions as of 04.09.2015.

Maybe the Waterfox is the fastest browser on planet Earth but certainly not on this machine and in this bench. Surprised about the Chrome score, though. It certainly doesn't feel as fast in real-world browsing. Subjectively, Waterfox feels about as fast as Firefox on a few heavy http pages I have tried so far. Yeah, the biggest "no" for me would be the inability to run WF alongside FF, though. I'll stick to my three-way setup (IE+GC+FF) for now.

EDIT: Yah, a new late entry. This browser feels faaaaast, I like how it renders pages. Based on Chrominium, I'll give Opera a few days of use. Good find, thanks Larry.
 
Last edited:
A4-5000 CPU Usage playing YouTube @ 1080p.



IE & Firefox seem to be the most efficient at this task. Waterfox? I don't know what it's doing, man. Way too many spikes. Chrome is the worst for HD video on this machine, though. Opera is not bad at all, going to use it for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Magic Carpet said:
A4-5000 CPU Usage playing YouTube @ 1080p.



IE & Firefox seem to be the most efficient at this task. Waterfox? I don't know what it's doing, man. Way too many spikes. Chrome is the worst for HD video on this machine, though. Opera is not bad at all, going to use it for a bit.
Click to expand...
Are you playing the video with flash or html5? Are you using the 64-bit version of flash in both Waterfox and Firefox? Lucky you, I can't even play 360p decently in YouTube so I just use VLC or download them. 🙂

Never had a 64-bit CPU/OS so can't really speak much about Waterfox.
 
Can't say I've extensively tested Pale Moon. From what I understand, PM forked Firefox, and is sticking at a certain point, so now extensions are not cross-compatible between Firefox and Pale Moon, like they are with Firefox and Waterfox.

So if you use a lot of Firefox extensions, then Waterfox would be a better choice.

Someone else also mentioned to me "CyberFox", which has 64-bit versions of Firefox like Waterfox is, but CyberFox offers both an AMD-optimized as well as an Intel-optimized build. Waterfox is strictly Intel-optimized.

So if you have an AMD rig, then CyberFox might be more appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top