3 ms·

If you're implying that Flash is using only software-based rendering while WebGL is hardware accelerated - thats not really true. Look it up - Flash has been do

by velcro 11y ago

If you're implying that Flash is using only software-based rendering while WebGL is hardware accelerated - thats not really true. Look it up - Flash has been doing HW acc. for years now across platforms. Its 2015 now and it took WebGL 5 years to get to decent (but not perfect) desktop support - forget about mobile. Same with video - as far as I know Flash does HW acc. video too. To a developer Flash is not a black box - to a user, again - it seems that that technology gets a lot of blame for what developers are doing with it. If you have 5 animated banners hogging your CPU/GPU, whether in WebGL or Flash - who is to blame?

SG- 11y ago
I specifically mention that even when it tries to do hardware acceleration it isn't as efficient. I know it does h264 hardware acceleration along with 3D stuff. It does it, it just does it really poorly compared to native alternatives. The blackbox comment is referring to it not being part of the DOM.
- velcro 11y ago
  Efficiency is a really subjective benchmark. Especially when there are multiple browsers and platforms in play. Look at the WebGL example posted a few comments above - it will very efficiently warm up your GPU :) Of course the content of a plugin is not a part of the DOM - however you're not calling MP4 videos or webfonts "blackboxes" for not being able to read their source code from the web inspector either...
  - rsynnott 11y ago
    > Efficiency is a really subjective benchmark Playing SD quality video in HTML5 in Safari; minimal CPU usage, 7 hours battery life (on a 2012 MBA). Playing SD quality video in Flash in Safari; heavy CPU usage, audible fan noise, 2 hour battery life. In a past life I did some Flash development; the Windows player was generally a little better (with the Mac one being in between and the Linux one being _horrendously_ inefficient), but it was still far from _good_.
  - SG- 11y ago
    it isn't, it's pretty easy to measure CPU usage along with energy usage with the exact same video file across multiple browsers on the same computer and across different players (html5 vs flash).

by velcro 11y ago

SG- 11y ago

I specifically mention that even when it tries to do hardware acceleration it isn't as efficient. I know it does h264 hardware acceleration along with 3D stuff. It does it, it just does it really poorly compared to native alternatives. The blackbox comment is referring to it not being part of the DOM.

velcro 11y ago
Efficiency is a really subjective benchmark. Especially when there are multiple browsers and platforms in play. Look at the WebGL example posted a few comments above - it will very efficiently warm up your GPU :) Of course the content of a plugin is not a part of the DOM - however you're not calling MP4 videos or webfonts "blackboxes" for not being able to read their source code from the web inspector either...
- rsynnott 11y ago
  > Efficiency is a really subjective benchmark Playing SD quality video in HTML5 in Safari; minimal CPU usage, 7 hours battery life (on a 2012 MBA). Playing SD quality video in Flash in Safari; heavy CPU usage, audible fan noise, 2 hour battery life. In a past life I did some Flash development; the Windows player was generally a little better (with the Mac one being in between and the Linux one being _horrendously_ inefficient), but it was still far from _good_.
- SG- 11y ago
  it isn't, it's pretty easy to measure CPU usage along with energy usage with the exact same video file across multiple browsers on the same computer and across different players (html5 vs flash).