Chrome x86_64 under Rosetta2 takes a significant back seat to everything else here-though we want to again stress that it does not feel at all slow and would perform quite well compared to nearly any other system.įinally, MotionMark 1.1 measures complex graphic animation techniques in-browser and nothing else. This is the closest thing to a "traditional" outside-the-browser benchmark and is the most relevant for general Web applications of all kinds-particularly heavy office applications such as spreadsheets with tons of columns, rows, and formulae but also graphic editors with local rather than cloud processing. Jetstream2 is the broadest of the three benchmarks and includes workloads for data sorting, regular expression parsing, graphic ray tracing, and more.
Speedometer shows a massive advantage for M1 silicon running natively, whether Safari or Chrome Chrome x86_64 run through Rosetta2 is inconsequentially slower than Chrome running on a brand-new HP EliteBook with Ryzen U CPU. This is probably the most relevant benchmark of the three for "regular webpage," if such a thing exists. The first benchmark in our gallery above, Speedometer, is the most prosaic-the only thing it does is populate lists of menu items, over and over, using a different Web-application framework each time. dmg is available today, and-as expected-it's significantly faster if you're doing something complicated enough in your browser to notice. That was and still is a true statement we find it difficult to believe anyone using the non-native binary for Chrome under an M1 machine would find it "slow." That said, Google's newer, ARM-native. I probably not rely on advice from here again.Further Reading Hands-on with the Apple M1-a seriously fast x86 competitor In our earlier testing, we declared that the previous version of Google Chrome-which was available only as an x86_64 binary and needed to be run using Rosetta 2-was perfectly fine.
#GOOGLE CHROME MAC VERIFICATION#
Now it's my word against his.Īnyway tom's guide's almost blind replication of Birchter's article without any commentary or independent testing or verification of his claims has killed my opinion of it. I use chrome and have it configured to run apps in the background too so it can be quite resource hungry at times, however it's never been the source of any performance issues. I would argue that the stats suggest he is in the minority.
#GOOGLE CHROME MAC MAC#
Birchter claims that Keystone has been a thorn in the side of mac users since 2009. Various counts put Chrome global market share at ~65%-71% of ~3.734bn-4.66bn unique users. In fairness Birchter's appears to be an edge case I'm not saying that Chrome hasn't or doesn't cause performance issues in certain scenarios/environments, but I do think that it isn't likely to be that many people (as in all software). This tends to mean that anything bad could and would have been spotted and fixed, in my opinion. I don't know much about Keystone, except that it's open source, which means anyone can peak inside. His recommendations are subjective, so I wouldn't take his advice. His claims are anecdotal and he provides no evidence or even detail about them. I'm really disappointed to see that article posted on tom's guide! Loren Brichter's website isn't particularly well written. Empty the Trash, and restart your computer.Īs an alternative to Chrome, Loren suggests using Mac’s native browser Safari, though if you’re insisting on using a Chromium-based browser, you can also use Brave or Vivaldi.Check the following folders: LaunchAgents, Application Support, Caches, Preferences.Delete all the Google folders, and anything else that starts with com.google.
If you’re experiencing issues with Chrome, clearing your cache, cookies and site data can be a good first step in helping improve your Mac’s performance.