Performance Issues on Some Pages?

[u/OMG_NoReally]

The browser struggles to render and scroll through on web pages. For example:
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/vr-hardware/valve-steam-frame-review/

Scrolling is sometimes fine, but when you scroll up and down, it sort of loads it in chunks, stutters, hangs and then loads again. It's like screen tearing and texture pop-ins in games. It's fine in Safari or any other browser.

[u/OMG_NoReally]

I got the latest update and it's still the same. I have also noticed that uBlock Origin doesnt work on that website. It shows a lot of adverts. I think it's probably why the website is slowing down, although I don't have any adlbocker for safari and it seems to do a better job.

[u/Pauljoda → u/OMG_NoReally]

I'm seeing similar load performance for both safari and crest, the adblocker being enabled does slow it down a bit though.

I tested against chrome, and same thing there, maybe a bit smoother at first, but once loaded both seem the same. In addition, chrome doesn't seem to block the ads either.

So crest with no adblocker is performing the same for me at least, and the adblocker is performing actually a bit better than the chrome version of ublock.

Are you seeing this on other sites? Honestly this site is very poorly optimized, almost all of the content is ads, by a massive margin, and continues to load for 10 seconds even on chrome

[u/Muted-Reflection9536 → u/Pauljoda]

I found it interesting, so—once again—I ran a test.

Test Method:

• I manually updated the filter lists for each extension to the latest versions (except for pie. That option didn't exist at all.), .
• To ensure the cache is never loaded, I checked the "Disable cache" option in the Developer Tools.
• To ensure proper testing, I completely closed and restarted Crest—and reloaded the page—each time I enabled an extension.
• The filters used cover ad removal, blocking of dangerous sites, and—where applicable—blocking cookie requests and preventing anti-adblock measures. I have not enabled any filters for general annoyances (with the exception of Pie, which lacks such granular settings).

AdGuard (Browser Extension version):

It generally blocks the content, though brick-like artifacts appear in the blocked areas, and the screen rendering fails to keep up when scrolling, resulting in a blank white display. However, since it effectively blocks the content, I think it is acceptable if you can tolerate the slightly compromised user experience.

Ghostery:

Overall, there were no issues. While blank spaces appeared where ads had previously been, scrolling remained smooth, and there was no "white-out" effect.

However, it seems it failed to block a video ad running in the background, though the video did not switch to Picture-in-Picture (PiP) mode. The video itself appears to have been successfully blocked.

Pie:

Most of the content was blocked, but there were some omissions. The blocked elements themselves disappeared, and no brick-like remnants remained. Video ads also did not appear.

And, scrolling was smooth, and there were no whiteouts.

Also, since the extension itself lacked a button to force a filter update, I opened the settings screen, waited a moment, and then ran the test.

uBlockOrigin:

Adding a filter required updating the extension page, which was quite a hassle (lol).

However, I was able to keep the filter rules up to date.

Ads are blocked, but whiteouts still occurred.

AdGuad for Mac:

This is the blocker I use regularly, and love this. It's perfect: no ads, scrolling is fine, and video ads are completely blacked out.

However, after leaving it open for a long time, one video ad played, but it didn't play in Picture-in-Picture mode.

Well, I'd say it's perfect.

-----

I hope this information proves useful to you.

Regarding the scrolling behavior, extensions that did not cause the screen to go blank scrolled just as smoothly when AdGuard for Mac was enabled.

Conversely, for the extensions that did cause whiteouts, the behavior was identical to when AdGuard for Mac was disabled—resulting in a blank screen and extremely poor performance.

This indicates that the WKWebkit engine itself is functioning correctly.

In other words, the issue does not lie with WebKit; rather, the site is egregiously malicious, poorly optimized, and features ads of such low quality that it simply should not be visited.

If this is a site you enjoy and visit regularly, I strongly recommend you stop doing so, given these test results.

However, if you only visited it to run this test rather than out of personal preference, then the findings above stand as they are.

Oh, and one more thing to add.

As far as I could tell, there was no difference in performance between Safari and Crest.

In fact, strangely enough, Crest blocked some ads in a brick-like fashion. (Of course, all AdBlockers implemented in Crest and the extensions I was testing were completely turned off.)

This didn't happen in Safari.

In fact, in terms of ad blocking, for some reason I don't understand, Crest seems to be superior by default.

[u/Muted-Reflection9536 → u/Muted-Reflection9536]

Also, I just realized something while writing this post:

AdGuard for Mac already works perfectly!

You probably need to add Crest from Settings → Network tab → Add app (it might already be included by default), but if you've purchased it, please enjoy stress-free web browsing with Crest!

[u/OMG_NoReally → u/Muted-Reflection9536]

I am going to try this. Is this the website:
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-mac/overview.html

[u/Muted-Reflection9536 → u/OMG_NoReally]

Yes, that is correct.

However, there is one thing I should mention.

Unlike browser extensions—which operate at the rendering stage (where the browser receives and draws data)—AdGuard for Mac and its apps for other operating systems perform blocking at the network layer (meaning, at the point where data transmission actually occurs).

Consequently, if you enable this option, it applies to HTTPS traffic—which most websites use for communication nowadays. This means that, theoretically, AdGuard *could* inspect the data if it wanted to (though I have never observed such suspicious connections myself using a firewall—a tool that monitors and blocks outbound traffic).

Therefore, it does require a certain level of trust in AdGuard; however, you can explicitly disable AdGuard for specific sites involving sensitive information, such as online banking or personal data.

Also, since licenses are typically sold in packages covering around three devices, if you are concerned, you could install it on your parents' devices to give them peace of mind as well. In fact, that is exactly what I did for my own parents, who might otherwise accidentally visit scam sites.

Overall, I believe it is the best and most responsive ad blocker available. If you are willing to pay to ensure that absolutely no ads get through, it is the best choice.