Found a good browser stress test

>>58441859
>I mean the obvious answer is to not visit rt.com
why not

>>58441859
>using chrome
Faggot.

>>58441880
Because it's an extremely bloated site that brings web browsers to their knees?

>>58441859
Why should I care about stress testing my browser?

I have a 4790k and 16 GB of ram, so it's a literal non-issue.

>>58441903
with ublock it's fine

>>58441859
>chrome

lmao

>>58441880
I agree, comrade.

>>58441900
>>58441934
>literally not reading the list of browsers in the OP to just shitpost about Chrome

Enjoy your slowfox though.

Not really noticing it, cpu usage stays at 1% and memory won't exceed 500MB.

>>58441917
ublock and umatrix right here, can confirm

Not a problem when using Edge :^)

>>58441917
>>58442087
ublock annoys the shit out of me as it's a bit like noscript in how much it interrupts actual functionality.

However, just tried with ublock, page still saps 11% CPU, albeit RAM usage reduced to 250MB.

File: Capture.png (40KB, 698x552px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 698x552px

>>58441859
With a VP9 video playing in edge at the same time.

File: .png (355KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1920x1080px

>>58441859
Am I meant to watch the video or something?

>>58442316
Nope
Beats me. Getting 15% on Opera here.
I mean, it's a 4 year old Thinkpad so if it's being compared to high end i7 desktops then of course the results won't be the same! But nothing has hammered it quite like this site - it even handles theverge.com which tended to put a strain on things.
Can't blame the browser or the OS, as both have been varied.

File: .png (39KB, 701x558px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 701x558px

>>58442418
It's an Acer laptop.
>Beats me
Check out your ad blocker settings for once. And by ad blocker I obviously mean ublock origin.

>1.1-2% CPU
>323 MB Mem

File: rt.com.png (509KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1680x1050px

15.4 MB here :^)

You think RT is bad? Try Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Hard mode: load all botnet as well

how is 10% CPU and 400 MiB stressful?

>>58443390
Without botnet it's actually quite clean, no CPU load at all and scrolling override bullshit.

File: 1436036694556.gif (4MB, 240x192px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 240x192px

>>58441859
Want a real browser stress test? Fucking Wikia. Without UBlock or similar, the amount of bloat on a single page is mind blowing. And heaven forbid you open 2 tabs.....

>>58444206
>And heaven forbid you open 2 tabs
Let me guess, a FF user? Wasn't e10 supposed to fix that shit?

Negligible CPU hit on that page, but then again with uBlock and most of the shit that page has on it not being able to get through probably has something to do with it.

Not using some kind of blocking plugin = you're fucked.

Using some kind of blocking plugin = everything is just better, period.

>>58442252
>it interrupts actual functionality.
but that is the point.

You stop EVERYTHING and only allow what you want as you need it.

My biggest gripe with ublock is stupid sites like ebay, aliexpress, dhgate that use dozens of domains for each part of the checkout process, you can't (easily, from the UI) allow *.aliexpress from *.aliexpress. I don't wanna write custom rules all the time.

>>58444206
Wikia is INSANE. Typical page load is about 6MB, hitting around 70 domains.

>>58441859
Time to upgrade that Pentium 4 OP.

I opened it and my CPU usage is at 3%. I'm even on a budget laptop with a shitty AMD APU.