4 ms·

"But minority browsers don't use as much CPU while playing HTML5 video tag data." Are you sure about that? Yes. I just tried it again to be doubly sure. In C

• blasdel 17y ago
  Sure, playing Theora from <video> takes about half the CPU that the Linux Flash plugin playing h264 does. His point is that they both have to do similar YUV-RGB and rich compositing bullshit within the rendering runtime -- and they're within the same order of magnitude of performance. mplayer takes a 1/20th the CPU cycles on the same normal desktop machine without even using hardware decoding optimizations. I wouldn't be surprised if its CPU usage was nearly optimal for the amount of data copying that needs to take place.
  • imurray 17y ago
    On my machine playing the same videos in mplayer or vlc is very close to the CPU used playing in the browser using the video tag. I did read the article, which continued from the bit I quoted as: As of this writing, browsers that support the video tag are likely to use a tremendous amount of CPU in order to play video. Why? It's likely because they have to deal with the exact same performance penalties that Flash does; specifically, that YUV video data needs to be transformed into RGB data to be plopped in the browser window. The implication was that the video tag will be just as bad as Flash, which just isn't my experience.
  • est 17y ago
    Why don't Flash or video tag invent something like video-only mode? Oh wait, is this something like DirectShow?