4 ms·
...it isn't a flattering comment on Flash's efficiency that having it display ads on webpages requires that much processing power. Amusing of course, but not e
by abstractbill 16y ago
...it isn't a flattering comment on Flash's efficiency that having it display ads on webpages requires that much processing power.
Amusing of course, but not even close to being accurate. Take a look at this for example:
http://www.unitzeroone.com/labs/alchemyPushingPixels/ http://www.unitzeroone.com/labs/alchemyPushingPixels/
That's rendering about 300,000 particles in 3D, in realtime. On my four-year-old macbook pro, the cpu usage is barely noticeable.
- g_lined 16y agoIt's very impressive and responsive but takes about 55% on both of my 2.8GHz Pro 2 Duo cores on OS X 10.6. I don't know why our numbers are so different. But I do know that on both my G4 iBook and G4 mac mini, any flash meant that I was maxing out. Since it was a G4, I wasn't surprised. What I was surprised about is that when I got my intel iMac (CPU as above) flash wasn't slow but used most of my CPU power. Edit: removed typo
- earl 16y agoDitto. I just ran that bit of flash and the whirring noise in the background is the fans in my laptop. Plus 60% cpu usage on each proc.
- bilban 16y agoThat noticeably hits my cpu. I monitor CPU use in the task bar out the corner of my eye, and that was the very reason I abandoned Flash. Flash ads used to lock up my old G4 frequently. Perhaps if Flash only ran in your active tab - or rather the one you were viewing - it wouldn't be so bad. It's hardly energy efficient - if I was to leave my computer for 20 minutes it would just keep consuming, whereas you'd hope it would throttle power use.