PDA

View Full Version : Due to the recent Chrome craze



renkinjutsu
December 10th, 2009, 04:46 AM
I've decided to start a Peacekeeper benchmark thread.

Post your benchmark results, people!

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_2FNmtUBG9J0/SyBsD3Uh_CI/AAAAAAAAAPs/I3dTJYArvo0/s400/peacekeeper.png (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_2FNmtUBG9J0/SyBsD3Uh_CI/AAAAAAAAAPs/I3dTJYArvo0/peacekeeper.png)

SunnyRabbiera
December 10th, 2009, 05:00 AM
I got 855 on Firefox 3.5 but it doesnt look too bad as i had thunderbird running and have several tabs open.

Tipped OuT
December 10th, 2009, 05:04 AM
Nice stuff

SunnyRabbiera
December 10th, 2009, 05:16 AM
Now I have a 1893 score on Chrome, however I also have extensions in firefox.
Benchmarks dont mean much anyway, if we were to use something just because of high benchmarks we would all be using terminal.

witeshark17
December 10th, 2009, 05:20 AM
Too lazy to close apps/tabs, so I may run another later.

SLEEPER_V
December 10th, 2009, 02:51 PM
4374 with chrome

Paqman
December 10th, 2009, 02:52 PM
This is probably towards the top end of Chrome performance, since neither RAM nor CPU were anywhere near being maxed. I have a rubbish graphics card, so any extra performance is likely to come from there:

Paqman
December 10th, 2009, 02:55 PM
Oops, double post...

pwnst*r
December 10th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Chrome (4.0.249.30) - 4653
FF (3.5.5)- 2293

both under Windows Vista

pwnst*r
December 10th, 2009, 03:02 PM
lol @ double broken image.

also, the forum's ability to quote is busted for me.

SLEEPER_V
December 10th, 2009, 03:42 PM
me too. its also not updating the index

pwnst*r
December 10th, 2009, 05:24 PM
you're right it's not. i don't see the new thread i created about an hour ago.

pwnst*r
December 10th, 2009, 05:24 PM
you're right it's not. i don't see the new thread i created about an hour ago.

Tipped OuT
December 10th, 2009, 06:44 PM
WTF? :popcorn:

Paqman
December 11th, 2009, 11:47 AM
lol @ double broken image.


Yeah, I thought I was being spastic there for a bit.

Psumi
December 11th, 2009, 11:57 AM
Firefox 3.5.5: 1587

:(

But I am never going to use Chrome.

Paqman
December 11th, 2009, 12:26 PM
But I am never going to use Chrome.

If that's because of "privacy" issues, then you can use Chromium, which is the open source version. So you can guarantee that there's no hidden nasties in it.

Psumi
December 11th, 2009, 01:10 PM
If that's because of "privacy" issues, then you can use Chromium, which is the open source version. So you can guarantee that there's no hidden nasties in it.

Can you actually show me the source code where the spyware portion is, and show me if it's removed out of chromium, all via the web rather than pasting the code here? I want to see it from their code repo/git rather than to have it shown to me frontly via an image or code bbcode box.

Until someone can do this, I will not switch to chromium/iron.

Paqman
December 11th, 2009, 01:29 PM
Can you actually show me the source code where the spyware portion is, and show me if it's removed out of chromium, all via the web rather than pasting the code here? I want to see it from their code repo/git rather than to have it shown to me frontly via an image or code bbcode box.

Until someone can do this, I will not switch to chromium/iron.

You're asking the wrong dude. I'm not a codemonkey. My point is that since the code is open, any "spyware" is already well documented (http://dev.chromium.org/Home). Just Google for information about Chrome privacy, there's plenty of information out there, nothing is hidden. You'll find a lot of the actual technical information comes from Google themselves. If they were lying, you should have no trouble finding someone who's contradicting them.

In short, you can opt-in to submit info to Google at install time. Everything else in the browser is not able to personally identify you AFAIK.

RabbitWho
December 11th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Irrelevant. I've swapped back to Swiftfox until Chrome stops auto logging me out in Travian. Very annoying. I could put up with crashes but that just got on my nerves.
Also it doesn't support HTML 5 woot!?

Less importantly I missed lazarus like a limb.

Also I've found now I don't have the speed dial function i waste a lot less time going to sites I don't really like out of habbit.. facebook for example.

pwnst*r
December 11th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Until someone can do this, I will not switch to chromium/iron.

google won't miss you.

speedwell68
December 11th, 2009, 02:32 PM
S'not a very good test. It has Swiftfox 3.5.5 down as Firefox 3.0.8 for a start.

Paqman
December 11th, 2009, 03:29 PM
S'not a very good test. It has Swiftfox 3.5.5 down as Firefox 3.0.8 for a start.

Most likely because that's what the Swiftfox user agent string told identified itself as.

speedwell68
December 11th, 2009, 04:12 PM
Most likely because that's what the Swiftfox user agent string told identified itself as.

So it has...

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/Speedwell68/browser.png

I still don't see the fasination wiith Chrome/Chromium and it's speed. Yes it is quicker than Firefox but it is no where near as functional. I am also suspicious of Google's motives. I am playing with a Chromium based browser, SRWare Iron, but it isn't as good as Swiftfox.

pwnst*r
December 11th, 2009, 05:40 PM
how is it not as "functional"? if you're going to start pointing out add-ons/extensions, well, they're on their way.

plus, the more of those, the more bloated.

Paqman
December 11th, 2009, 05:58 PM
how is it not as "functional"?

About the only thing i've noticed that it doesn't do is live bookmarks, but I can live without that.

pwnst*r
December 11th, 2009, 06:23 PM
indeed.

Xbehave
December 14th, 2009, 01:44 AM
The benchmark is pretty meaningless, i switched from repos to swiftweasel-pgo-amd and while the bench went up 0.5% it doesn't represent how much more responsive the swiftweasel feels

pwnst*r
December 14th, 2009, 01:46 AM
feel is pretty meaningless.

sertse
December 14th, 2009, 01:56 AM
Also on functionality, not only is Chrome gradually get more and more extensions, but sometimes I think the user should ask itself, whether they are is being too unreasonable in expecting their every and sometimes esoteric habit to be catered.

Sure browsers should have a good product, but it's goes both ways. Users should also be reasonable expectations..

Xbehave
December 14th, 2009, 02:17 AM
feel is pretty meaningless.
What? erm when it comes to tools the user interacts with feel is about the only thing that matters. Obviously chrome does render faster but the numbers don't represent how close Firefox is in real world use age or that chrome chokes on more pages.

Paqman
December 16th, 2009, 06:19 PM
What? erm when it comes to tools the user interacts with feel is about the only thing that matters.

Difficult to quantify = objectively meaningless.

I get what you're saying, but numerical benchmarks at least don't suffer from the placebo effect. Humans do. That's not to say benchmarks always tell the whole story either, as it depends on how they're designed.

Raffles10
December 16th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Peacekeeper faq:


What does it test?

Peacekeeper measures your browser's performance by testing its JavaScript functionality. JavaScript is a widely used programming language used in the creation of modern websites to provide features such as animation, navigation, forms and other common requirements. By measuring a browser’s ability to handle commonly used JavaScript functions Peacekeeper can evaluate its performance.

Isn't this just testing how java performs on our pc's ? Some have sun's jre, others have openjdk, some have may have older packages depending on which Ubuntu version they're running, some are more up to date.

I'm always wary of these kind of 'benchmark tests' but this seems rather useless to test and compare browsers.

Colonel Kilkenny
December 16th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Isn't this just testing how java performs on our pc's ? Some have sun's jre, others have openjdk, some have may have older packages depending on which Ubuntu version they're running, some are more up to date.

JavaScript has nothing to do with Java.

bruno9779
December 16th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Chrome works great for me, flash finally works on EVERY site, the FF extensions i need are already fully implemented, responsivenes compared to FF is just amazing.

I would like a Gnome version to integrate fully with my environment, but I admit it is just a whim.

And I think that one of the pillars of linux philosophy is being disrespected in every chrome thread:

USE WHAT BEST FITS YOUR NEEDS.

and, do all of you chrome-bashers use MSN or Yahoo as a search engine? because it is pointless to bash chrome for privacy issues and use google.com as a search engine

pwnst*r
December 16th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Difficult to quantify = objectively meaningless.

I get what you're saying, but numerical benchmarks at least don't suffer from the placebo effect. Humans do. That's not to say benchmarks always tell the whole story either, as it depends on how they're designed.

thank you.

Zoot7
December 16th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Chrome: 3401
Firefox 3.5: 1488

Both done on Karmic.

Xbehave
December 16th, 2009, 09:47 PM
I get what you're saying, but numerical benchmarks at least don't suffer from the placebo effect. Humans do. That's not to say benchmarks always tell the whole story either, as it depends on how they're designed.
That's my point really, I don't think these benchmarks tell much of the story at all.
1) They only test JS speed
2) They do it for very unrealistic situations, I mean when is the last time you saw a website do most of the test (95% of the web is covered by simple DOM manipulation and string editing, which is only in the last sub section)

So changes that correspond a faster browser for the user (faster smooth scroll, faster page rendering, faster tab opening/closing/reopening, faster backwards/forwards, better interaction with plugins, etc) are not represented at all.

pwnst*r
December 16th, 2009, 09:54 PM
So changes that correspond a faster browser for the user (faster smooth scroll, faster page rendering, faster tab opening/closing/reopening, faster backwards/forwards, better interaction with plugins, etc) are not represented at all.

for me, chrome has been better in that regard also (don't use any plugins other than adblock though)

Xbehave
December 16th, 2009, 10:12 PM
for me, chrome has been better in that regard also (don't use any plugins other than adblock though)
I agree that chrome is probably faster (chrome vs FF3.5 is on a vista machine i use), i just don't think this benchmark is worth much.

Jim_in_Omaha
December 17th, 2009, 07:39 AM
My Chrome scored 3931. Had it running with another half covering it whilst surfing.

My Firefox 3.5.5 scored 1495. Had a Chrome running at the same time.

FF seems too slow in this test....hmmmm

hellion0
December 17th, 2009, 08:03 AM
Hardy on a Pentium 4:

Chrome 4.0.249.43 617
Firefox 3.5.5 255

vishzilla
December 17th, 2009, 08:09 AM
On my P4 too:

Chromium 4.0.249.30 : 1834
Firefox 3.5.6 : 882

toupeiro
December 17th, 2009, 08:56 AM
I could really care less about some irrelavent benchmark number when you're talking about realized performance increases that are marginal at best. I go by real world tests. both browsers, multiple tabs displaying the same spread of web data, including streaming video. Yes, chrome loads slightly faster than the latest firefox. It's also 35MB more bloated than Firefox right out of the door viewing the exact same data, and that gets progressively heavier the more its used. I use my computer for GADS more than web browsing, therefore I want a browser to be fully functional, compatible with all the sites I use, and light as possible. The speed increase in chrome, to me, is not worth the bloat. I don't really care how fast it is if its more bloated than firefox. firefox is bloated enough, and fast enough. If the results yielded full seconds in difference, that begins to be worth the memory footprint increase. This is not the case.

User3k
December 17th, 2009, 09:40 AM
On Xubutnu 9.10, all add-ons for both browsers where disabled. I could visually see the performance difference between Chrome and Firefox. I started using Chrome recently because it just felt better, seemed faster and seemed more stable then Firefox was for me and I am a long time fan of Firefox.

Chrome 4.0.266.0 -

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=367&pictureid=5352



Firefox 3.5.5 -

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=367&pictureid=5353


Edit:

Here are my Opera results. I don't really use it but I wanted to see the results. I am a bit surprised honestly.

http://ubuntuforums.org/picture.php?albumid=367&pictureid=5356

HappinessNow
December 17th, 2009, 11:55 AM
tried it on firefox twice and got this message:


Error occurred
An error occured during your benchmark run. Likely causes for this are

* Hitting back/forward/reload during the benchmark run
* Network connectivity issues during benchmark run
* Issues with the Peacekeeper server
* Cookies are disabled

This should be a temporary error, so please try again in a bit and make sure cookies are enabled.

lost interest in running this in Firefox

HappinessNow
December 17th, 2009, 12:20 PM
tried it on firefox twice and got this message:



lost interest in running this in FirefoxOkay here are my results in XP sp3:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140280&d=1261048750

I tried to run it in Firefox a third time and it failed again, unfortunately.

I would have loved to see how Firefox stacked up.

User3k
December 17th, 2009, 12:21 PM
Strange that Firefox is failing. However it is funny seeing the IE score :lolflag:


Edit - I think I will install opera and edit the results into my above post.

HappinessNow
December 17th, 2009, 12:26 PM
Strange that Firefox is failing. However it is funny seeing the IE score :lolflag:


Edit - I think I will install opera and edit the results into my above post.IE is a joke! :P

It would be interesting to see your Opera results.

User3k
December 17th, 2009, 12:42 PM
IE is a joke! :P

It would be interesting to see your Opera results.

Yes, IE is a bad joke, a sad joke, lol

I just added Opera to my results above.

HappinessNow
December 17th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Okay here are my results in XP sp3:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140280&d=1261048750

I tried to run it in Firefox a third time and it failed again, unfortunately.

I would have loved to see how Firefox stacked up.
Okay I re-ran all my browsers, I still could not get it to work on Firefox, even ran Firefox in safemode, unistalled Firefox and downloaded the latest beta Firefox and they all come up with the same message.

Anyway here are the new results:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140285&d=1261053675

The main difference in Google Chrome is this time I opened a dedicated new window and ran it in incognito mode.

Interesting edit, I install and ran the test for the Safari Web Browser in XP, which is almost equal to Google Chrome Browser.

HappinessNow
December 17th, 2009, 01:48 PM
Detailed results are as follows:

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140286&d=1261054017

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140287&d=1261054017

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140288&d=1261054017

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=140289&d=1261054017

Xbehave
December 17th, 2009, 02:22 PM
It's also 35MB more bloated than Firefox right out of the door viewing the exact same data, and that gets progressively heavier the more its used. I use my computer for GADS more than web browsing, therefore I want a browser to be fully functional, compatible with all the sites I use, and light as possible.

One thing to look out for is the fact that most system monitors are terrible at giving chromes actual memory use. 2 chrome processes, take up almost the same memory as 1 but most monitors peg the number as significantly more. [1] (http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.html). Under high memory usage situations chrome is probably going to behave better than Firefox because all tabs you aren't using can be swapped out and soon there will be memory de-duplication that should cut memory usage for chrome (again i think this will only kick in when your ram gets full)

renkinjutsu
December 17th, 2009, 02:30 PM
One thing to look out for is the fact that most system monitors are terrible at giving chromes actual memory use. 2 chrome processes, take up almost the same memory as 1 but most monitors peg the number as significantly more. [1] (http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.html). Under high memory usage situations chrome is probably going to behave better than Firefox because all tabs you aren't using can be swapped out and soon there will be memory de-duplication that should cut memory usage for chrome (again i think this will only kick in when your ram gets full)

You can always check the "about:memory" page.

also, it is interesting how closely safari and chrome scored, although safari scored higher in a lot of the tests than chrome

5BallJuggler
December 17th, 2009, 02:59 PM
The results aren't as good as some that i've seen on here, but this is running on a netbook, so I guess I can't be too ashamed

Xbehave
December 17th, 2009, 03:13 PM
You can always check the "about:memory" page.

also, it is interesting how closely safari and chrome scored, although safari scored higher in a lot of the tests than chrome
Yeah it looks like safari gets better results in everything other than complex graphics (which is probably the least important test), I'd it's because they both interact with the same renderer (webcore) and that lets their JS engines perform well (i don't think they use the same JS engine but i may be wrong)

renkinjutsu
July 16th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Yes, they both use Webkit as the rendering engine, but Chrome uses V8 for JS (it's also now in Android also!!)

Anyway, sorry for the necromancy, but I paid another visit to Peacekeeper, and i found that Chrome 6 on an Intel Core 2 Duo is kicking Chrome 4's butt on an Intel Core i7-920

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_2FNmtUBG9J0/TECsCKro1_I/AAAAAAAAAVY/gL6eIJrXNjk/s144/morechrome.png (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_2FNmtUBG9J0/TECsCKro1_I/AAAAAAAAAVY/gL6eIJrXNjk/morechrome.png)

Stan_1936
July 16th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Old Toshiba laptop running Google Chrome on Windows 7......

Specs?

doorknob60
July 16th, 2010, 08:30 PM
Guess Opera wins :P I still use Chromium as my default browser though, Opera doesn't have addons :P (at least not the ones I need)

kaldor
July 16th, 2010, 08:42 PM
Old Toshiba laptop running Google Chrome on Windows 7.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7290/googlechromemini.png (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/googlechrome.png/)

Awesome, you play JKA ;)

renkinjutsu
July 16th, 2010, 08:43 PM
Did you have to "install" firefox beta 4, or are you just executing the binary in the tarball downloaded from their website? I can't seem to execute the binary for some reason.

Also, for a good chrome/chromium extension, download Vimium.

cariboo
July 16th, 2010, 08:48 PM
Chrome - 3936
Chromium - 3571
Firefox 4 - 2302
Firefox 3.6.8pre - 1336

benerivo
July 16th, 2010, 10:40 PM
6,349 with Chromium v6.0.468 on my laptop...

Xianath
July 16th, 2010, 11:55 PM
Chrome(v5.0.375.99) Scored:
7353 Points

fatality_uk
July 17th, 2010, 12:20 AM
Chrome seems nippy

Screenshots people, screenshots!!

drphilngood
July 17th, 2010, 12:46 AM
See Post #82 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=9603681&postcount=82)

renkinjutsu
July 17th, 2010, 02:14 AM
Hmm. Just noticed there was a Dev release yesterday.
Minor improvement.

marshmallow1304
July 17th, 2010, 02:49 AM
Chromium - 10120
Opera - 6790
Firefox - 2441


I still use Firefox though, for the addons.

cra1g321
July 17th, 2010, 02:14 PM
2094 - firefox 3.6.6
7957 - Chromium v6.0.468.0
6744 - Chrome v5.0.375.99

Guess what 1 im gonna be using now

BrokenKingpin
July 17th, 2010, 09:06 PM
Chromium: 7070
Firefox: 2021

Chromium smokes Firefox, and I had more tabs open when running the Chromium test.

Pure speed isn't the only reason I am using Chromium as my main browser now... Firefox lately has just been overly buggy.

tjwoosta
July 17th, 2010, 09:21 PM
Chrome only scores so high because it uses the webkit rendering engine. Its not the only webkit browser so why is it the only one that ever gets noticed, because of the google brand name?

BrokenKingpin
July 17th, 2010, 09:25 PM
Chrome only scores so high because it uses the webkit rendering engine. Its not the only webkit browser so why is it the only one that ever gets noticed, because of the google brand name?
Because it is a good browser that has a lot of good features, on top of the Google brand name.

benerivo
July 17th, 2010, 09:35 PM
Chrome only scores so high because it uses the webkit rendering engine. Its not the only webkit browser so why is it the only one that ever gets noticed, because of the google brand name?

I don't know why chrome scores so high, but i've tried arora (which also uses webkit) and it scores less then half the points chromium did in the same circumstances. Other than that, the main reason it gets noticed on this thread is because more people use it.

Hman242
July 17th, 2010, 09:53 PM
1982 in Firefox and 6201 in Chromium.

TheStroj
July 17th, 2010, 09:59 PM
6997 (ah cmon, it could be 7000...)

Chrome ftw!

earthpigg
July 17th, 2010, 10:06 PM
i7 quad, throttled down to 1.6ghz
ubuntu 10.04 32-bit

FF 3.6.6, 2789

(FF test was tainted: other tabs where open, i continued browsing, and have a few ff addons running)

Chrome 5.0.375.99 beta, 7738

SRWare Iron for Linux (http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1031) 5.0.381.0, 7282

interesting note about Iron: I extracted the tarball to my desktop and ran the binary located in ~/Desktop/iron-linux... no install or config required. if you put both this folder and the Windows Portable Iron folder on a thumb drive, you could take your web browser settings with you when using both Win and Linux machines.

EDIT

ok, someone explain this one to me: disabled all ff addons, restarted firefox, closed all tabs, restarted ff again for good measure, and ran test again. score was 2786 -- essentially, the score was identical. meaning that addons like FireGestures and Adblock plus don't slow FF down at all, according to this test.

TheStroj
July 17th, 2010, 11:37 PM
Ok I ran test again on Chrome, this time I restarted browser and finaly reached 7000 =D

Chrome <3

PC_load_letter
July 18th, 2010, 01:14 AM
3861 running Chrome on my 64bit Karmic AMD dual processor + Nvidia card + 8G RAM, see attachment:

chris200x9
July 18th, 2010, 01:38 AM
3381 on firefox 4 beta 1 on a hackintosh, dunno if it matters but my graphics card is not supported so I might have lost points there.

marshmallow1304
July 18th, 2010, 03:43 AM
ok, someone explain this one to me: disabled all ff addons, restarted firefox, closed all tabs, restarted ff again for good measure, and ran test again. score was 2786 -- essentially, the score was identical. meaning that addons like FireGestures and Adblock plus don't slow FF down at all, according to this test.

Yeah, I ran it once in Firefox regularly then started FF in safe mode and ran it again, with no significant improvement. This is with a good number of addons - ABP, ABP Element Hiding Helper, Lazarus, FoxyProxy, Greasemonkey, Greasefire, Flagfox, Download Helper, etc.

Sm0ke42o
July 18th, 2010, 06:09 AM
2649 in Firefox 3.6.8pre
9707 in Opera 10.6
9418 in Chrome 5.0.375.99

drphilngood
July 18th, 2010, 06:23 AM
Chrome v6.0.466.0 = 13197
Chromium v5.0.375.99 = 10608
Opera 10.60 = 10602
Arora = 0.10.2 = 4834
Firefox 3.6.6 = 2964
Firefox 3.6.7 = 2911
SeaMonkey 2.0.5 = 2219

PC_load_letter
July 18th, 2010, 08:29 PM
3861 running Chrome on my 64bit Karmic AMD dual processor + Nvidia card + 8G RAM, see attachment:

Here, Chrome 5 slightly out performed Opera 10.6, it scored 3839.

Spr0k3t
July 18th, 2010, 09:24 PM
If I could only make Chrome fit in more with the rest of the gnome environment and had more of the add-ons from Firefox... I'd consider using it more. Also, I want a menu... not some tools widget a la IE7, it feels so intuitively backwards.

PC_load_letter
July 18th, 2010, 11:17 PM
If I could only make Chrome fit in more with the rest of the gnome environment and had more of the add-ons from Firefox... I'd consider using it more. Also, I want a menu... not some tools widget a la IE7, it feels so intuitively backwards.

To fit gnome more: In the 'options' menu you can choose to use the GTK theme and/or if you right click on the title bar you can choose the system's title bar and window borders.

As for the addons, it's getting better.

Spr0k3t
July 19th, 2010, 04:09 AM
To fit gnome more: In the 'options' menu you can choose to use the GTK theme and/or if you right click on the title bar you can choose the system's title bar and window borders.

Take a closer look at that screen shot. I've already done just that. Still doesn't look like it fits. Those weird tabs, the unfinished scrollbars, even the coloration of the buttons in the interface. It could be better, yes... but when? Firefox isn't as clean as Epiphany when it comes to fitting into the OS, but at least it gets closer.

PC_load_letter
July 22nd, 2010, 10:41 AM
Take a closer look at that screen shot. I've already done just that. Still doesn't look like it fits. Those weird tabs, the unfinished scrollbars, even the coloration of the buttons in the interface. It could be better, yes... but when? Firefox isn't as clean as Epiphany when it comes to fitting into the OS, but at least it gets closer.

Seen this?
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/elnmibmpefhmfgphdphdncoogpbfmlbp?hl=en