This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Just a place for me to keep track of comparative memory usage over time. Screenshot before/after reference benchmark. Great care taken to ensure memory was garbage collected before screenshots taken. To force memory garbage collection, browser left on idle for more than 1 minute, then dev console of each extension opened, Timeline tab, then clicked twice on the trash can icon.

23 December 2014

• Chromium 39.0.2171.65 64-bit (Linux)
• uBlock 0.8.2.2
• AdBlock 2.15
• Adblock Plus 1.8.8
• Adguard AdBlocker 1.0.3.8

Before benchmark started:

After benchmark completed:

Observations during benchmark:

• ABP/AdBlock/Adguard are CPU intensive. Whereas uBlock consistently show at most low-single digit CPU usage, other blockers are most often showing double-digit CPU usage, and sometimes in the high double-digit range.

Settings:

• uBlock 0.8.2.2: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie (i.e. less memory churning at launch).
• AdBlock 2.15: AdBlock custom filters, EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, Malware protection.
• Adblock Plus 1.8.5: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, Malware Domains. Acceptable ads disabled.
• Adguard AdBlocker 1.0.3.8: English filters, Spyware filter, Peter Lowe's, Social media filter‎, Phishing and malware protection. Allow acceptable ads disabled.
• Browser's Click-to-play enabled
• Browser's Block third-party cookies and site data checked

Notes:

• Users should mind privacy issues raised when enabling AdGuard's Malware/phishing protection.

18 September 2014

• Chromium 37.0.2062.94 64-bit (Linux)
• uBlock v 0.6.2.1
• AdBlock 2.7.13
• Adblock Plus 1.8.5
• Ghostery 5.4.0
• Disconnect 5.18.15

Before benchmark started:

After benchmark completed:

Observations during benchmark:

• AdBlock is very CPU intensive. Adblock Plus also, although to a lesser degree compared to AdBlock.

Settings:

• uBlock v 0.6.2.1: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, all malware lists (3). Launched with a valid selfie (i.e. less memory churning at launch).
• AdBlock 2.7.13: AdBlock custom filters, EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, Malware protection.
• Adblock Plus 1.8.5: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s Social Blocking List‎, Malware Domains. Acceptable ads disabled.
• Ghostery 5.4.0: Blocking all trackers. Ghostrank not selected. Alert bubble disabled.
• Disconnect 5.18.15: Default settings.

Notes:

I chose to not benchmark AdGuard, because of the privacy issues when enabling Malware/phishing protection.