3 ms·
The fact that it takes up to 80 percent of the CPU in a quad-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro to render a 400x300 Flash game just boggles my mind The reason is because Ado
by fnid2 17y ago
The fact that it takes up to 80 percent of the CPU in a quad-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro to render a 400x300 Flash game just boggles my mind
The reason is because Adobe developers don't use hardware 3d graphics acceleration. They do everything in the processor because they don't know how to write code that works on multiple types of hardware or maybe they are too lazy or cheap, I don't know.
The effect is that ALL of their apps run dreadfully slow on all platforms because every single calculation has to go through the CPU.
This is just one of the many reasons Adobe software is some of the worst on the market.
- blasdel 17y agoIt has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU or platform. Flash on Windows had no graphics acceleration at all until ~6 months ago. Flash running in Virtualized Windows or Wine on top of OS X works terrifically.
- eonwe 17y agoIn http://theflashblog.com/?p=1641 http://theflashblog.com/?p=1641 the Adobe developers seem to complain about lack of possibility to use hardware acceleration on OSX. Yet as you said, Windows Flash has been fast the whole time. Could someone better versed in plugin development tell us if there is a difference in how the browser plugins are done between OSX and Windows (drawing the video part perhaps?). Or what else could create the difference as I would think that much of the Flash VM code would be identical between Intel OSX and Windows?
- blasdel 17y agoThe Flash plugin for IE is ActiveX, but all Flash plugins for other platforms use the same Mozilla NPAPI plugin system, whether it's Firefox on Windows, Safari on OS X, or Chrome on Linux. Both Windows Flash plugins have the same good performance: it ain't an API issue.