From 5739e45874f4b670fca193c2632966d9a71729b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:27:27 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Debunking "uBlock Origin is less efficient than Adguard" claims (markdown) --- ...-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" index 95d5e1e..dbc44f4 100644 --- "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" +++ "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" @@ -72,4 +72,4 @@ Memory usage after all tabs loaded (see pic, top is after browser launch + garba ### Conclusion: -Both extensions use essentially the same code on Microsoft Edge as they do on Chromium, so it is expected they will have the same performance outcome. Given that uBlock Origin consumes 1/3 of CPU cycles to actually accomplish more than Adguard (uBO's defaults includes Peter Lowe's and malware lists), to claim that the results are completely reversed on Microsoft Edge is an extraordinary claim, and thus needs to be substantiated by more than just a completely subjective and data-less assessment such as "methodology is real life usage". +Both extensions use essentially the same code on Microsoft Edge as they do on Chromium, so it is expected they will have the same relative performance outcome. Given that uBlock Origin consumes 1/3 of CPU cycles to actually accomplish more than Adguard (uBO's defaults includes Peter Lowe's and malware lists), to claim that the results are completely reversed on Microsoft Edge is an extraordinary claim, and thus needs to be substantiated by more than just a completely subjective and data-less assessment such as "methodology is real life usage".