2 ms·

Not sure what's the gist of the test -- all this proves is that it's possible to achieve 100% CPU usage in HTML, and that some browsers perform better than othe

Not sure what's the gist of the test -- all this proves is that it's possible to achieve 100% CPU usage in HTML, and that some browsers perform better than others. How does that relate to Flash? I guess my point is that it's missing some real benchmark. So here's some. Desktop FP 10.1 vs Canvas http://vimeo.com/10553088 http://vimeo.com/10553088 Android FP 10.1 vs Canvas http://vimeo.com/10553088 http://vimeo.com/10553088 GUIMark 2 http://www.craftymind.com/guimark2/ http://www.craftymind.com/guimark2/ I look forward to more benchmarks like these in the future.

raimondious 16y ago
From the article, Re: real benchmarks If you are interested in a more direct comparison of performance between various multimedia technologies, then check out the tests done at themaninblue.com [http://themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/ http://themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/]. This is one specific test but it shows that if anything, Flash performance is on par (if not better in some cases) with comparable technologies. and Re: what does this have to do with Flash? So, when looking at Flash CPU usage compared to other multimedia technologies, then no, Flash does not use an inordinate amount of CPU. While Flash content can at times use high amounts of CPU, this is a result of the nature of the content, and not necessarily specific to the Flash runtime. Edited with some original content: I think he has a good point that there's a lot of blind anti-Flash rage without actually thinking about what Flash competes with. Yes it's better to design websites so they don't tax your processor, but we're probably going to see the same issues people peg Flash with when sites use open alternatives for multimedia.