Has performance improved on heavier "javascript all the things!" websites?

[__NM64__]

My hardware hasn't changed and, due to needing to rearrange some data and disks around, I've even temporarily disabled all automatic updates and have held off on any/all manual updates.

So there's been no software changes, and my hardware is exactly as it has been.

Yet, are my eyes deceiving me and heavier "javascript all of the things!" websites performing a little better in Pale Moon recently? As in maybe the last few weeks or maybe month or two or something.


The one possibility that I have no proof of is that I may (or may not?) have recently switched over to the AVX2 build that could be helping things. Thing is, I know I switch to AVX2 from the plain old SSE2 build, but I don't recall how recent this was other than "sometime earlier this year". Muddying the waters still is that I think I may have switch back to the SSE2 build from the AVX(1) build also some time earlier this year before later going back to the AVX2 build (in other words: SSE2 ▶ AVX1 ▶ SSE2 ▶ AVX2)

...so I'm just looking for a bit of a sanity check from others if they've noticed any improvements performance-wise recently or not.

[Moonchild]

AVX will perform considerably better than SSE2 in our typical use case. That's been the whole reason I've pushed for making AVX the default despite the complaints from people on old (or deliberately crippled/ultra-low-power) hardware.
So, I'm not surprised at all that you feel this difference in real world use on heavy sites.

[Theresnothinghere]

I also noticed a slight improvement lately, before reading your post so maybe not placebo, even on SSE2 build on my Vista machine.
So maybe there were some performance improvements to something like Meta React, which is the framework often used for those "web aplication" heavy sites.

[frostknight]

AVX will perform considerably better than SSE2 in our typical use case. That's been the whole reason I've pushed for making AVX the default despite the complaints from people on old (or deliberately crippled/ultra-low-power) hardware.
So, I'm not surprised at all that you feel this difference in real world use on heavy sites.

That reminds me, is this the default for 32 bit palemoon? If so, I would recommend not doing that. Just because 32 bit likely has way less capabilities then 64 bit and might not support AVX. I imagine most 32 bit hardware doesn't support AVX if any.

If you already considered this, nevermind.

Its just a thought that occurred to me.

[UCyborg]

32-bit Pale Moon is built without AVX. 32-bit only CPUs don't have AVX instructions.

According to this thread, they can be used to some extent in 32-bit programs, supposedly only under 64-bit OS, but I'm not the expert and didn't read to the end.

[__NM64__]

I imagine most 32 bit hardware doesn't support AVX if any.

Indeed, x86-64 predates AVX by almost a decade on the AMD size (though on the Intel side it was only a difference of less than a decade between their last 32bit-only CPU, a variant of the first-gen Atom, and their first AVX CPU).

[frostknight]

32-bit Pale Moon is built without AVX. 32-bit only CPUs don't have AVX instructions.

According to this thread, they can be used to some extent in 32-bit programs, supposedly only under 64-bit OS, but I'm not the expert and didn't read to the end.

Then no worries and makes sense to me.

[UCyborg]

I suspect my extensions and the way I have browser configured mostly negate whatever performance improvements were supposed to be there. Yes, I do have AVX capable laptop at work, but you could sneak in a differently configured build and I wouldn't notice.

On home desktop with AMD Phenom II X4 920 (no AVX), going from 32-bit to 64-bit build actually made things a bit slower. I just use 64-bit build to avoid browser getting stuck in a loop on memory pressure.

[__NM64__]

On home desktop with AMD Phenom II X4 920

I figured at this point I'd be the only one with such a system! It's not my "personal" computer however (which is what's in my signature), and it's been "earmarked" for replacement with either an AM4 system.

(fun fact: if you happen to have any LGA1150 or LGA1155 motherboards, then compatible Xeon CPUs are stupid cheap on Ebay, and those platforms still use DDR3 so no need to buy new RAM...unless of course, like me, you were using AM3 as a cheap way to access ECC support, then your only choice is to go AM4 or AM5 really...though earlier-gen Ryzen CPUs are getting pretty cheap now, though not the ~$10 USD dirt-cheap like those aforementioned Xeon CPUs!)

[UCyborg]

Mine's actually AM2+, not AM3. The rest is also at 2, DDR2 RAM, USB 2.0, SATA II (there's also eSATA port at the back) and PCI Express 2.0 x16.

[frostknight]

(fun fact: if you happen to have any LGA1150 or LGA1155 motherboards, then compatible Xeon CPUs are stupid cheap on Ebay,

Off-topic:
Old computers in general are cheap due to people thinking they need to have the latest and what they call the greatest to do current computing.

This is however, good for linux users as they can get solidly awesome hardware like the T480 with libreboot for almost nothing and etc... And linux compatible hardware in general.

But more on topic, heavy javascript is no problem for older computers if you block ads as much as possible. At least usually. (not if you go older than gen 3 intel probably though.

[moonbat]

heavy javascript is no problem for older computers if you block ads as much as possible.

This. I've been blocking ads since 1999, can't imagine surfing the net without that especially now. Ads consume your bandwidth and system resources besides being an ugly distraction on the page or mobile app in question and that's before the amount of malware that is spread through ad networks.

[frostknight]

This. I've been blocking ads since 1999, can't imagine surfing the net without that especially now. Ads consume your bandwidth and system resources besides being an ugly distraction on the page or mobile app in question and that's before the amount of malware that is spread through ad networks.

And that second sentence you wrote is another reason I block ads. They are ugly because they follow modern gui principles (YUCK!) and that is how malware is spread too. Although I don't fear malware as much due to using a Linux OS.

Off-topic:
Whether or not that is reasonable to Moonchild is beyond me to understand... but that's besides the fact I use a linux distro with minimalist principles usually. (Hyperbola) Meaning they get rid of most of the overengineered crap like dbus, systemd, pulseaudio and other redhat trash.

[moonbat]

They are ugly because they follow modern gui principles (YUCK!)

It has nothing to do with GUI principles. They are an eyesore no matter where you see them. They clash with the colors and themes of the website (or desktop app, we're talking adware from the early 00s like RealPlayer), or mobile app - taking up unnecessary screen space. Modern GUIs are an eyesore anyway.

Although I don't fear malware as much due to using a Linux OS.

Common sense browsing practices largely make the underlying OS irrelevant when it comes to online safety. There are malware for Linux too now.

[Moonchild]

They clash with the colors and themes of the website (or desktop app, we're talking adware from the early 00s like RealPlayer), or mobile app - taking up unnecessary screen space.

Don't forget the other class of "ads", the notorious "download button" ads that target software distribution websites (and regularly software dev websites as well) to try and trick users into downloading something other than they intended. Those try to clash as little as possible (which is made easier by most websites looking like wordpress templates now). Blocking ads there prevents you from having to carefully scan that what you're clicking on isn't the wrong thing.

Off-topic:

Although I don't fear malware as much due to using a Linux OS.
Off-topic:
Whether or not that is reasonable to Moonchild is beyond me to understand... but that's besides the fact I use a linux distro with minimalist principles usually. (Hyperbola) Meaning they get rid of most of the overengineered crap like dbus, systemd, pulseaudio and other redhat trash.

Irrelevant. Malware generally doesn't care about Linux system implementations and what "overengineered crap" is running under the hood; as long as you're running something POSIX compatible it tends to be able to do its nefarious things.

[frostknight]

Irrelevant. Malware generally doesn't care about Linux system implementations and what "overengineered crap" is running under the hood; as long as you're running something POSIX compatible it tends to be able to do its nefarious things.

Overengineered crap makes more attack vectors.

I am sure you heard about the xz backdoor right?

That used a flaw in systemd combined with openssh.

Overengineered crap have a lot of unseen flaws due to the complex scope creep that will take forever to find.

But yes, linux does get malware. Albeit not as much as other systems as of now... unless its a server then they are more likely to target you.

[moonbat]

the notorious "download button" ads

One good habit I've always had is to look at the link target in the status bar before clicking on anything
It's why I was so pissed off when Firefox 4 removed it in favor of a tiny popup.

[frostknight]

One good habit I've always had is to look at the link target in the status bar before clicking on anything
It's why I was so pissed off when Firefox 4 removed it in favor of a tiny popup.

That is a wise habit. Its dumb if mozilla had that removed.

Because if you see .zip.exe

That's a red flag, a huge one.

[Gemmaugr]

One good habit I've always had is to look at the link target in the status bar before clicking on anything
It's why I was so pissed off when Firefox 4 removed it in favor of a tiny popup.

That is a wise habit. Its dumb if mozilla had that removed.

Because if you see .zip.exe

That's a red flag, a huge one.

It gets even worse, because (thanks to javascript abuse) links are not even links in many places today. Just an image that appears like a link, but doesn't show the end point URL.

[frostknight]

It gets even worse, because (thanks to javascript abuse) links are not even links in many places today. Just an image that appears like a link, but doesn't show the end point URL.

Pure idiocy... just like microsoft windows hiding known file extensions being the default.

SMH.