4 ms·

WebGL now faster than Flash?

26 points by irrlichthn 14y ago

robmcm 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines
- paol 14y ago
  Except for me it's actually "yes" (with caveats - more details in my comments to the blog post)
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  This is quite likely an exception. Browser JavaScript engines are faster than Flash's ActionScript engine, and WebGL is older and more mature than Flash's 3D support.
est 14y ago
In other news, One OpenGL wrapper is faster than other.
dmpk2k 14y ago
When wasn't it faster than Flash? Last time I used Away3D, I had trouble getting more than 5k triangles with a reasonable framerate, which is a bit ridiculous. Admittedly, this was a couple years ago. Has something changed?
- 0x0 14y ago
  Away3D 4.x uses the new Stage3D flash feature ("OpenGL wrapper") for hardware acceleration. "A few years ago" means you probably used the old Away3D 3.x software renderer.
- modeless 14y ago
  Yes, Flash got a hardware accelerated 3D API called Stage 3D. A performance comparison could be very interesting, if it had some actual data behind it.
udp 14y ago
> Also, it sounds a bit strange, because Flash is statically compiled down to bytecode, while JavaScript is still very dynamic Doesn't ActionScript use the same JIT as Mozilla's JS engine? (or did I imagine that?)
- bad_user 14y ago
  You're referring to Tamarin, the engine open-sourced by Adobe in 2006. The part that's used in Firefox now is NanoJIT, extracted from Tamarin, which is a module for generating native code when doing JIT compilation. Read this older post from 2010 for some notes on it: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/03/a-quick-note-on-javascript-engine-components/ http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/03/a-quick-note-on-javascript-...
  - fridek 14y ago
    I think that NanoJIT was removed from Firefox with Trace JIT http://blog.mozilla.org/dmandelin/2011/11/29/js-development-newsletter-1123-1129/ http://blog.mozilla.org/dmandelin/2011/11/29/js-development-...
- reitzensteinm 14y ago
  No, and it was slower even in 2008, which was well before the JS arms race V8 started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarin_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarin_(software)
- driax 14y ago
  No it doesn't. Adobe did open-source their JIT and partnered with Mozilla for further development. But Mozilla could not make it fit Javascript well enough, and eventually their own JITs became faster, so they concentrated on them.
rsynnott 14y ago
It also looks like the WebGL version is anti-aliased; the Flash version isn't.
mrgordon 14y ago
Now when will we see a truly open standard for WebGL? The Khronos Group is dominated by industry heavyweights who are designing a non-open standard that benefits their interests. Soon we likely won't be able to implement competitive web browsers without proprietary code from graphics card manufacturers. I am very unhappy with the direction of this even if the web clearly needs better graphics support.
- vilya 14y ago
  This is pure FUD. Membership in the Khronos Group is open to anyone who's willing to pay their fees (which includes Mozilla, Google, Opera and a number of universities, by the way - not just GPU vendors). The specifications they produce are publicly available at no cost. They even have a public mailing list so you can follow the discussions of the working group. How much more open do you want? Maybe a better question: if that isn't what you consider "open", what is?

26 points by irrlichthn 14y ago

robmcm 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines

paol 14y ago
Except for me it's actually "yes" (with caveats - more details in my comments to the blog post)
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
This is quite likely an exception. Browser JavaScript engines are faster than Flash's ActionScript engine, and WebGL is older and more mature than Flash's 3D support.

est 14y ago

In other news, One OpenGL wrapper is faster than other.

dmpk2k 14y ago

When wasn't it faster than Flash? Last time I used Away3D, I had trouble getting more than 5k triangles with a reasonable framerate, which is a bit ridiculous. Admittedly, this was a couple years ago. Has something changed?

0x0 14y ago
Away3D 4.x uses the new Stage3D flash feature ("OpenGL wrapper") for hardware acceleration. "A few years ago" means you probably used the old Away3D 3.x software renderer.
modeless 14y ago
Yes, Flash got a hardware accelerated 3D API called Stage 3D. A performance comparison could be very interesting, if it had some actual data behind it.

udp 14y ago

> Also, it sounds a bit strange, because Flash is statically compiled down to bytecode, while JavaScript is still very dynamic Doesn't ActionScript use the same JIT as Mozilla's JS engine? (or did I imagine that?)

bad_user 14y ago
You're referring to Tamarin, the engine open-sourced by Adobe in 2006. The part that's used in Firefox now is NanoJIT, extracted from Tamarin, which is a module for generating native code when doing JIT compilation. Read this older post from 2010 for some notes on it: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/03/a-quick-note-on-javascript-engine-components/ http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/03/a-quick-note-on-javascript-...
- fridek 14y ago
  I think that NanoJIT was removed from Firefox with Trace JIT http://blog.mozilla.org/dmandelin/2011/11/29/js-development-newsletter-1123-1129/ http://blog.mozilla.org/dmandelin/2011/11/29/js-development-...
reitzensteinm 14y ago
No, and it was slower even in 2008, which was well before the JS arms race V8 started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarin_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarin_(software)
driax 14y ago
No it doesn't. Adobe did open-source their JIT and partnered with Mozilla for further development. But Mozilla could not make it fit Javascript well enough, and eventually their own JITs became faster, so they concentrated on them.

rsynnott 14y ago

It also looks like the WebGL version is anti-aliased; the Flash version isn't.

mrgordon 14y ago

Now when will we see a truly open standard for WebGL? The Khronos Group is dominated by industry heavyweights who are designing a non-open standard that benefits their interests. Soon we likely won't be able to implement competitive web browsers without proprietary code from graphics card manufacturers. I am very unhappy with the direction of this even if the web clearly needs better graphics support.

vilya 14y ago
This is pure FUD. Membership in the Khronos Group is open to anyone who's willing to pay their fees (which includes Mozilla, Google, Opera and a number of universities, by the way - not just GPU vendors). The specifications they produce are publicly available at no cost. They even have a public mailing list so you can follow the discussions of the working group. How much more open do you want? Maybe a better question: if that isn't what you consider "open", what is?