Really it's allocators in general. Allocations are perceived as expensive only because they are mostly dependent on the amortized cost of prior deallocations. As an extreme example, even GCs can be fast if you avoid deallocation because most typically have a long-lived object heap that rarely gets collected - so if you keep things around that can be long-lived (pooling) their cost mostly goes away.
Allocation is perceived as slow because it is. Getting memory from the OS is somewhat expensive because a page of memory needs to be allocated and stored off. Getting memory from traditional allocators is expensive because freespace needs to be tracked. When you say "I need 5 bytes" the allocator needs to find 5 free bytes to give back to you.
Bump allocators are fast because the operation of "I need 5 bytes" is incrementing the allocation pointer forward by 5 bytes and maybe doing a new page allocation if that's exhausted.
GC allocators are fast because they are generally bump allocators! The only difference is that when exhaustion happens the GC says "I need to run a GC".
Traditional allocators are a bit slower because they are typically something like an arena with skiplists used to find free space. When you free up memory, that skiplist needs to be updated.
But further, unlike bump and GC allocators another fault of traditional allocators is they have a tendency to scatter memory which has a negative impact on CPU cache performance. With the assumption that related memory tends to be allocated at the same time, GCs and bump allocators will colocate memory. But, because of the skiplist, traditional allocators will scattershot allocations to avoid free memory fragmentation.
All this said, for most apps this doesn't matter a whole lot. However, if you are doing a CPU/memory intense operation then this is stuff to know.
> Getting memory from traditional allocators is expensive because freespace needs to be tracked.
If you've never deallocated then there is no free space to track, hence the cost of allocation is _mostly_ (per my above comment) affected by the amortized cost of deallocations. The cost becomes extremely apparent with GCs because a failed allocation is usually what triggers a collection (and subsequently any deallocations that need to happen).
Still, your comment goes into detail that I probably should have.
Really it's allocators in general. Allocations are perceived as expensive only because they are mostly dependent on the amortized cost of prior deallocations. As an extreme example, even GCs can be fast if you avoid deallocation because most typically have a long-lived object heap that rarely gets collected - so if you keep things around that can be long-lived (pooling) their cost mostly goes away.