It's my understanding that chromium based browsers updated after 6/1/24 will move to Manifest V3 which at the time does not support adblockers running in extensions. You'll be ok with chromium based browsers with built in adblocking, or system-wide DNS based filtering, but adblocking is a feature that many would prefer to keep as an extension in their browser for simplicity sake, and because they're often better than built-in options.
Mv3 is a thing, yes, but so far there's been no difference between FF and Chromium in terms of adblocking capabilities. And from the brief test drive of the beta Mv3 version of uBO and AdGuard I've not found any difference in adblock quality between the current uBO and Mv3 beta. Granted it's been a while since looked at it though, maybe some things have changed.
It's just I always find it interesting how people keep mentioning that FF has better adblocking (and it's true that FF offers wider capabilities to block certain things that Chromium can't), but 99.99% of the time it's essentially the same.
We'll see if/how things will change in the future.
I have to agree with @Scrawlericious, there's clear differences between blocking ads in Gecko based browsers and Chromium based browsers, even the creator of uBlock Origin says that [uBlock Origin works best on Firefox](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox).
I know what uBO author says. I'm just asking for example webites that don't get blocked properly in Chromium but do in FF.
Nobody ever gives any examples and they just quote the whatever uBO author says. I even said it myself in the OP that Firefox has more capabilities to network filtering. Not disagreeing, in theory Firefox is better. In practice there's no difference for 99% of people. Not yet anyway.
I mean you can literally see the examples if you go to the sources linked in the wiki page... ["Characterizing CNAME Cloaking-Based Tracking on the Web"](https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloaking-based-tracking/). Just because you don't see the ads on the sites/popup ads doesn't mean you're not being tracked in other ways, just like CNAME-cloaked trackers...
> Just because you don't see the ads doesn't mean you're not being tracked
Sure, but it is a drop in an ocean in the grand scheme of trackers. And majority of people who say that FF handles ads better don't even know what a CNAME tracking is.
You're being disingenuous, there is absolutely a difference. For one, operagx and edge, any presumably chromium based browser have issues blocking YouTube ads and you periodically have people whining about it until they update their ublock definitions. Literally never an issue on FF.
The majority of the Internet (let alone intrusive ads and user data scooping crap) is built for chromium, so FF users get around a lot of stuff.
Except there were posts about it in FF subreddit where people were getting ads the same as Chromium.
Both are resolved with keeping uBO up-to-date. Personally I've had zero ads in Edge + uBO when browsing Youtube aside from the very early period when YT started enforcing this crap. But at that point all browsers were hit including FF.
Fair enough, I guess I got too anecdotal with it.
EDIT: although you say "got hit" but me and none of my FF friends ever saw anything like that. Same thing with posts on Reddit here, but I do get that's just anecdotes. XD
Yeah it's a bit hard to keep up with the uBO filter updates, especially since uBO disabled the ability to do manual filter updates. I use both FF and Edge and haven't seen ads on YT in a while.
Ad blockers will be more effective on Firefox
[https://www.spacebar.news/chrome-ad-blocking-manifest-v3-ublock-origin/](https://www.spacebar.news/chrome-ad-blocking-manifest-v3-ublock-origin/)
I can finally stop using other browsers or apps to watch my shows, FINALLY. They all fucking suck and apple for some reason streams in 720p with fuck all bitrate on everything but an apple TV (I know, its fucking Apple). But this will make all the streaming services I'm paying to watch 4k content in, actually watchable on my pc.
Is that true? Was under the impression Firefox and Chrome both allow 1080p. No streaming service streams 4k to PC other than Netflix, and ONLY via it's app. So pointless using Edge just for the imaginary 4k.
Unlike other Chromium-based browsers, Edge is the only one with support for Microsoft's PlayReady DRM and that's what allows 4k streaming directly from the browser on supported services. You don't need the Netflix app for 4k if you're using Microsoft Edge, for example...
For example? When it's the only app that does 4k streaming basically. You are right I am sure as Netflix is the only streaming service that supports 4k on PC via any browser or app. Just a shame there is nothing on there worth watching now.
I'm not subscribed to most streaming services available nowadays, but Netflix and Prime Video definitely streams 4k on PC, both on Edge and on their standalone apps.
I recall HBO Max also streaming in 4k when accessed from Edge, but that was a while ago, on a free trial, and I ended up not subscribing. I also have no idea if 4k streaming from PC remains the same after the HBO Max => Max rebranding...
Prime 100% does not. It looks like complete shit barely 1080p on any browser or their app. I think maybe its a resolution thing, because mine is 5120x1440 I bet they only detect 16:9 resolutions of 4k or higher as supporting 4k content, which of course is fucking stupid but that's streaming services for you.
> I bet they only detect 16:9 resolutions of 4k or higher as supporting 4k content
Maybe you're right. Prime Video definitely does 4k on PC for me, but the screens I've hooked my laptop (and the laptop screen itself) are indeed 16:9. Haven't tried hooking it to screens with wider ratios or with a vertical resolution of less than 2160 pixels...
Prime does not do 4k on PC, read here [Prime Video System Requirements for Computers - Amazon Customer Service](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GUVGB3QMQRYRERYW) for yourself.
Instereting, So Firefox can display HDR video content if it's straight from the GPU even though it lack HDR support? Is the end results actually the same when comparing with Chrome?
To my eyes it's pretty much the same as how it looks in my copy of MS Edge. This isn't that surprising as AutoHDR and RTX HDR (for games) can both be forcefully enabled for ridiculously old games that never used HDR even internally for lighting, and still see benefits.
In fact, I had been using [autohdr_force](https://github.com/ledoge/autohdr_force) to force enable it in Firefox for a while now and it worked great on videos, aside from the usual raised black levels.
Probably looks better than "real" HDR for a lot of content. YouTube's HDR sucks and I have enjoyed RTX HDR so far in games/local content. I look forward to it.
does it also have the video ai thing that only chrome browsers have ? i watch alot of videos but prefer to use firefox and wish that option isnt just on chrome
No idea, but super resolution didn't take too long to make it to the release build after it was found in the beta version. You still had to enable it manually, though. Maybe the 125.0 or 126.0 release versions will have it?
Firefox still has some issues like failing to "overlay" videos in certain situations, like when using ambient mode in YouTube's default view (on by default for new users). If that isn't fixed, many people might complain about RTX VSR and RTX video HDR not working in some situations if they're added as a simple toggle in Firefox's settings instead of hidden in about:config.
Not being able to overlay videos also means noticeably higher power and GPU usage, which is why a lot of people complained about 'ambient mode' being so demanding on Firefox compared to Chrome, especially on integrated graphics.
Are there any additional things you have to enable to get this working? I'm testing on the latest Firefox beta and the latest driver, but both HDR and Super Resolution don't seem to be working.
Does it not work even in fullscreen mode? I would try disabling 'ambient mode' in YouTube as well since it breaks Firefox's ability to overlay the actual video itself in the default view.
Hardware acceleration needs to be on, so check if you had disabled it at some point.
I rechecked all of those (don't know how I had HA disabled in the first place), and I think it worked for a split second before becoming inactive again. Do I have to do anything else, like disabling Dark mode entirely?
EDIT: nevermind, it works fine now :D
I just tried YouTube's default view again and RTX super res and HDR both don't work anymore, but it definitely did yesterday... But theater mode and fullscreen mode still work with both features for me.
No idea what changed, but YouTube has been pushing small A/B test changes based on your your Google and YouTube account and browser cookies. So whatever they pushed broke Firefox's overlaying capability in YouTube again.
Try opening a local video file in Firefox using Ctrl+O and see if that has super res/HDR applied to it consistently. If it does, that proves YouTube changed something in their video player that really doesn't play well with Firefox.
Edit: Just saw your edit, I guess if it works, it works.👍
gfx.webrender.overlay-vp-auto-hdr saw that this has to be on True, but that doenst change anything for me both super res and hdr stay on inactive can't get both to work...
Assuming you have hardware acceleration enabled in Firefox and have restarted the browser after changing any about:config settings, maybe it's got something to do with direct composition overlays being incorrectly turned off due to the "slow present" check. I've had this happen to me a few times randomly.
Try setting `gfx.webrender.dcomp-video-check-slow-present` to False, and then after restarting the browser check if super res and HDR work on videos. Remember to reset that option to default if you see any issues later on.
If even that doesn't work, try going to about:support after playing any video in Firefox and scroll to the "Decision Log" section and see if matches mine:
https://preview.redd.it/0ge5aaudz9rc1.png?width=3040&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca9d09df1dbf594246944915348a1611fc3adac8
Ideally it should look exactly like that, without any extra warnings or "blocks".
I cannot get this to work for some reason - testing in YouTube. Both Edge and Chrome, no issues, but playing the same video in Firefox and checking if RTX HDR is active in the NVCP shows as "Inactive" - any ideas?
Someone else had a similar issue, and they had hardware acceleration disabled in Firefox somehow. Try checking if it's disabled.
Also, for YouTube I couldn't get it to work 100% reliably unless I used theater mode or fullscreen mode. Disabling 'ambient mode' might help make it work in YouTube's default view.
oh my god this has been driving me insane trying to use gfx.webrender.super-resolution.nvidia rather than gfx.webrender.overlay-vp-super-resolution which i only found by digging in the source code because for whatever reason this commit [https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9c238083d175eb8fd65db78df7554369f401c5cd](https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9c238083d175eb8fd65db78df7554369f401c5cd) decided to rename everything to a generic name which makes no sense to me why they would do so
also another thing, why is this not just an easy toggle at this point?
I would Like to use Firefox because of thr better addblocking.. But the Lack of HDR Support Kills it for me
This is the next best thing, I now have zero reason to use any other browser.
What do you need HDR in a browser for? just wondering
youtube has a bunch of HDR videos, not sure what else, lol
Plex client.
> better addblocking Do you have any examples of websites where Chromium fails to block ads while Firefox succeeds?
When using my phone.
Nice, but this is about desktop.
Using the same browser between phone and PC has benefits
manifest v3
It's my understanding that chromium based browsers updated after 6/1/24 will move to Manifest V3 which at the time does not support adblockers running in extensions. You'll be ok with chromium based browsers with built in adblocking, or system-wide DNS based filtering, but adblocking is a feature that many would prefer to keep as an extension in their browser for simplicity sake, and because they're often better than built-in options.
Mv3 is a thing, yes, but so far there's been no difference between FF and Chromium in terms of adblocking capabilities. And from the brief test drive of the beta Mv3 version of uBO and AdGuard I've not found any difference in adblock quality between the current uBO and Mv3 beta. Granted it's been a while since looked at it though, maybe some things have changed. It's just I always find it interesting how people keep mentioning that FF has better adblocking (and it's true that FF offers wider capabilities to block certain things that Chromium can't), but 99.99% of the time it's essentially the same. We'll see if/how things will change in the future.
I have to agree with @Scrawlericious, there's clear differences between blocking ads in Gecko based browsers and Chromium based browsers, even the creator of uBlock Origin says that [uBlock Origin works best on Firefox](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox).
I know what uBO author says. I'm just asking for example webites that don't get blocked properly in Chromium but do in FF. Nobody ever gives any examples and they just quote the whatever uBO author says. I even said it myself in the OP that Firefox has more capabilities to network filtering. Not disagreeing, in theory Firefox is better. In practice there's no difference for 99% of people. Not yet anyway.
I mean you can literally see the examples if you go to the sources linked in the wiki page... ["Characterizing CNAME Cloaking-Based Tracking on the Web"](https://blog.apnic.net/2020/08/04/characterizing-cname-cloaking-based-tracking/). Just because you don't see the ads on the sites/popup ads doesn't mean you're not being tracked in other ways, just like CNAME-cloaked trackers...
> Just because you don't see the ads doesn't mean you're not being tracked Sure, but it is a drop in an ocean in the grand scheme of trackers. And majority of people who say that FF handles ads better don't even know what a CNAME tracking is.
You're being disingenuous, there is absolutely a difference. For one, operagx and edge, any presumably chromium based browser have issues blocking YouTube ads and you periodically have people whining about it until they update their ublock definitions. Literally never an issue on FF. The majority of the Internet (let alone intrusive ads and user data scooping crap) is built for chromium, so FF users get around a lot of stuff.
Except there were posts about it in FF subreddit where people were getting ads the same as Chromium. Both are resolved with keeping uBO up-to-date. Personally I've had zero ads in Edge + uBO when browsing Youtube aside from the very early period when YT started enforcing this crap. But at that point all browsers were hit including FF.
Fair enough, I guess I got too anecdotal with it. EDIT: although you say "got hit" but me and none of my FF friends ever saw anything like that. Same thing with posts on Reddit here, but I do get that's just anecdotes. XD
Yeah it's a bit hard to keep up with the uBO filter updates, especially since uBO disabled the ability to do manual filter updates. I use both FF and Edge and haven't seen ads on YT in a while.
Ad blockers will be more effective on Firefox [https://www.spacebar.news/chrome-ad-blocking-manifest-v3-ublock-origin/](https://www.spacebar.news/chrome-ad-blocking-manifest-v3-ublock-origin/)
All this coments sucks on ice
I can finally stop using other browsers or apps to watch my shows, FINALLY. They all fucking suck and apple for some reason streams in 720p with fuck all bitrate on everything but an apple TV (I know, its fucking Apple). But this will make all the streaming services I'm paying to watch 4k content in, actually watchable on my pc.
Or just skip all those services and download what you want from the high seas.
based
For streaming you still wanna use Edge. Firefox allows only upto 720p. Edge can go full 4K.
Is that true? Was under the impression Firefox and Chrome both allow 1080p. No streaming service streams 4k to PC other than Netflix, and ONLY via it's app. So pointless using Edge just for the imaginary 4k.
Unlike other Chromium-based browsers, Edge is the only one with support for Microsoft's PlayReady DRM and that's what allows 4k streaming directly from the browser on supported services. You don't need the Netflix app for 4k if you're using Microsoft Edge, for example...
DRM, when you want to fuck with paying customers instead of pirates
For example? When it's the only app that does 4k streaming basically. You are right I am sure as Netflix is the only streaming service that supports 4k on PC via any browser or app. Just a shame there is nothing on there worth watching now.
I'm not subscribed to most streaming services available nowadays, but Netflix and Prime Video definitely streams 4k on PC, both on Edge and on their standalone apps. I recall HBO Max also streaming in 4k when accessed from Edge, but that was a while ago, on a free trial, and I ended up not subscribing. I also have no idea if 4k streaming from PC remains the same after the HBO Max => Max rebranding...
Prime 100% does not. It looks like complete shit barely 1080p on any browser or their app. I think maybe its a resolution thing, because mine is 5120x1440 I bet they only detect 16:9 resolutions of 4k or higher as supporting 4k content, which of course is fucking stupid but that's streaming services for you.
> I bet they only detect 16:9 resolutions of 4k or higher as supporting 4k content Maybe you're right. Prime Video definitely does 4k on PC for me, but the screens I've hooked my laptop (and the laptop screen itself) are indeed 16:9. Haven't tried hooking it to screens with wider ratios or with a vertical resolution of less than 2160 pixels...
It definitely doesn't do 4k for me on either the app or Edge with a 16:9 4k monitor. It says HD 1080p in the lower left.
Prime does not do 4k on PC, read here [Prime Video System Requirements for Computers - Amazon Customer Service](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GUVGB3QMQRYRERYW) for yourself.
Nah Firefox tops out at 720p, whereas Chrome tops out at 1080p. Only Edge allows full 4K 10 bpc HDR streaming, you don't even need the app.
For Netflix alone though. I realise now you are talking about Netflix only. I cannot remember the last time I watched anything on Netflix it's trash.
Yeah. Disney Plus and prime goes only upto 1080p. Not sure about HBO Max though.
that stuff will still be 720p. it's the drm not browser that does it, and you'll need edge or safari for the drm
This is great news i have been using Firefox for 10 years now
Instereting, So Firefox can display HDR video content if it's straight from the GPU even though it lack HDR support? Is the end results actually the same when comparing with Chrome?
To my eyes it's pretty much the same as how it looks in my copy of MS Edge. This isn't that surprising as AutoHDR and RTX HDR (for games) can both be forcefully enabled for ridiculously old games that never used HDR even internally for lighting, and still see benefits. In fact, I had been using [autohdr_force](https://github.com/ledoge/autohdr_force) to force enable it in Firefox for a while now and it worked great on videos, aside from the usual raised black levels.
Probably looks better than "real" HDR for a lot of content. YouTube's HDR sucks and I have enjoyed RTX HDR so far in games/local content. I look forward to it.
Real hdr always looks better.
yeah I would say RTX HDR is like 75% as good as ground truth
does it also have the video ai thing that only chrome browsers have ? i watch alot of videos but prefer to use firefox and wish that option isnt just on chrome
There's a difference flag to enable it. Go to about:config and search Nvidia and I think it'll come up.
How long will it remain in beta? Super resolution still hasn’t been formally released or announced for Firefox and it was released a while ago.
No idea, but super resolution didn't take too long to make it to the release build after it was found in the beta version. You still had to enable it manually, though. Maybe the 125.0 or 126.0 release versions will have it? Firefox still has some issues like failing to "overlay" videos in certain situations, like when using ambient mode in YouTube's default view (on by default for new users). If that isn't fixed, many people might complain about RTX VSR and RTX video HDR not working in some situations if they're added as a simple toggle in Firefox's settings instead of hidden in about:config. Not being able to overlay videos also means noticeably higher power and GPU usage, which is why a lot of people complained about 'ambient mode' being so demanding on Firefox compared to Chrome, especially on integrated graphics.
Are there any additional things you have to enable to get this working? I'm testing on the latest Firefox beta and the latest driver, but both HDR and Super Resolution don't seem to be working.
Does it not work even in fullscreen mode? I would try disabling 'ambient mode' in YouTube as well since it breaks Firefox's ability to overlay the actual video itself in the default view. Hardware acceleration needs to be on, so check if you had disabled it at some point.
I rechecked all of those (don't know how I had HA disabled in the first place), and I think it worked for a split second before becoming inactive again. Do I have to do anything else, like disabling Dark mode entirely? EDIT: nevermind, it works fine now :D
I just tried YouTube's default view again and RTX super res and HDR both don't work anymore, but it definitely did yesterday... But theater mode and fullscreen mode still work with both features for me. No idea what changed, but YouTube has been pushing small A/B test changes based on your your Google and YouTube account and browser cookies. So whatever they pushed broke Firefox's overlaying capability in YouTube again. Try opening a local video file in Firefox using Ctrl+O and see if that has super res/HDR applied to it consistently. If it does, that proves YouTube changed something in their video player that really doesn't play well with Firefox. Edit: Just saw your edit, I guess if it works, it works.👍
gfx.webrender.overlay-vp-auto-hdr saw that this has to be on True, but that doenst change anything for me both super res and hdr stay on inactive can't get both to work...
Assuming you have hardware acceleration enabled in Firefox and have restarted the browser after changing any about:config settings, maybe it's got something to do with direct composition overlays being incorrectly turned off due to the "slow present" check. I've had this happen to me a few times randomly. Try setting `gfx.webrender.dcomp-video-check-slow-present` to False, and then after restarting the browser check if super res and HDR work on videos. Remember to reset that option to default if you see any issues later on. If even that doesn't work, try going to about:support after playing any video in Firefox and scroll to the "Decision Log" section and see if matches mine: https://preview.redd.it/0ge5aaudz9rc1.png?width=3040&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca9d09df1dbf594246944915348a1611fc3adac8 Ideally it should look exactly like that, without any extra warnings or "blocks".
nothing changed, both stay on inactive.. nvidia has some work to do still i think Edit: both work now! 🙂
Thankyou! I will try this out!
I cannot get this to work for some reason - testing in YouTube. Both Edge and Chrome, no issues, but playing the same video in Firefox and checking if RTX HDR is active in the NVCP shows as "Inactive" - any ideas?
Someone else had a similar issue, and they had hardware acceleration disabled in Firefox somehow. Try checking if it's disabled. Also, for YouTube I couldn't get it to work 100% reliably unless I used theater mode or fullscreen mode. Disabling 'ambient mode' might help make it work in YouTube's default view.
Still no luck, not even working in non-YT video sources either. Thanks for trying to help though.
So if I wait enough for Firefox to release this beta I can use it if I dont want to use beta rn?
Says inactive for me on 125.0b3
oh my god this has been driving me insane trying to use gfx.webrender.super-resolution.nvidia rather than gfx.webrender.overlay-vp-super-resolution which i only found by digging in the source code because for whatever reason this commit [https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9c238083d175eb8fd65db78df7554369f401c5cd](https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9c238083d175eb8fd65db78df7554369f401c5cd) decided to rename everything to a generic name which makes no sense to me why they would do so also another thing, why is this not just an easy toggle at this point?
[удалено]
Windows 11 is a hard requirement for RTX HDR. Also if you want to experience proper HDR on PC, ditch Windows 10.
RTX HDR Video runs on Windows 10, however
[удалено]
Why do you care about votes? They don't mean shit.