Disable “Allow some non-intrusive advertising” and AdBlock Plus will performance wise, sit in the middle of the pack. If you’re wondering why the popular AdBlock Plus got low scores in some Chrome tests, the answer is simple and it’s purely down to the acceptable ads check box. All Firefox ad blockers were very close in the end, but like in Chrome, ♛lock Origin managed to get a 0.4 second lead over everything else. Here are the combined load times for all 9 websites in Firefox (tmz.com wasn’t tested).Īlthough not what we’re looking at, it’s interesting to see that Firefox was slower than Chrome to load our test pages in all but one test. AdBlock Plus was the most CPU intensive, more on that below. AdBlock and the AdBlock based extensions all struggled to control their CPU usage on a number of sites. ΜBlock Origin won this time as well, being the least taxing on the CPU by an average of almost 2% over Ghostery, Adguard was a close third. SuperBlock Pro was the highest memory user, followed by AdBlock and AdRemover. The previous winner ♛lock Origin is second but it’s memory usage did vary a bit site by site. Adguard was also very consistent and rarely strayed far from its 52MB average. There’s certainly more of a difference in the average peak memory usage, Ghostery was incredibly efficient averaging a peak of 37MB across all 10 websites. Ghostery would’ve been faster if it hadn’t tripped up at. Two stand out, AdBlock Plus for being noticeably slower than the rest, and ♛lock Origin for being a good 0.4 seconds faster than anything else. Most averaged 3.6 – 3.8 seconds with a time to display the untouched page of 10.5 seconds. The results show that on average an ad blocker can reduce the time it takes to load a page with ads by around two thirds. Here are the combined average scores for all 10 websites in Chrome. It’s time to look at all the scores from the test websites as a combined total to see what the ad blockers have done overall.
Grab the discount ► Overall Results and Summary
0 kommentar(er)
