PDA

View Full Version : Flash 10.2 beta and the MacBook Air




vd0t
Dec 1, 2010, 06:42 AM
Adobe released Flash 10.2 beta today:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/stagevideo.html

It includes Stage Video, a new API for GPU/hardware acceleration during video playback.

"In our internal testing, a laptop can play 1080p HD video with about 0% CPU usage"

Has anyone tried this with the MacBook Air? Improved battery life/performance?

Definitely improved CPU usage on my MacBook Pro 15". MacBook Air 13" still on its way...



Hellhammer
Dec 1, 2010, 06:48 AM
About 20% CPU usage on my 1.86GHz MBA. I don't use Flash so can't talk about battery life but 20% seems quite good IMO. And BTW, I watched Avatar trailer in 1080p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2RCBa3l-g). Fan didn't even kick in (it never has for me).

Oh, and thanks for sharing :)

foiden
Dec 1, 2010, 06:53 AM
Hmm. Cool post. I'll have to give it a go. I have tested that exact same video with my MBA 13" ultimate with Flash 10.1. Now, apparently 2.13GHZ is actually enough to play that movie, all the way, smoothly. It also is the one thing that caused my fans to work the hardest. (Yep. Even Starcraft 2 OSX at all medium settings (runs perfectly on the MBA 13" ultimate at that setting even during large battles (300+ units)) doesn't command the fan as much as that video did.)

As long as it hopefully doesn't mess other things up, or I have the ability to go back to a more stable flash, I should give it a go. I can't say about battery as I didn't monitor the exact battery usage on playing that movie. Just that it was definitely using my CPU like no tomorrow. Then again, 13" Max has a pretty strong CPU.

I'll get back to you when I run this with the new flash.

vd0t
Dec 1, 2010, 06:57 AM
Also, when you're testing make sure not to use Google Chrome (my default browser). Chrome has its own Flash plug-in, and doesn't use Flash 10.2 even if it's installed in your system. I tried it with Safari and it was about 15% CPU usage on a MacBook Pro 15" 1.53 GHz Core 2 Duo.

Edit: As low as 10% CPU usage when playing back the Avatar trailer in 1080P. Incredible!

Hellhammer
Dec 1, 2010, 07:02 AM
Also, when you're testing make sure not to use Google Chrome (my default browser). Chrome has its own Flash plug-in, and doesn't use Flash 10.2 even if it's installed in your system. I tried it with Safari and it was about 15% CPU usage on a MacBook Pro 15" 1.53 GHz Core 2 Duo.

Edit: As low as 10% CPU usage when playing back the Avatar trailer in 1080P. Incredible!

I used Safari and checked that my player indeed is the 10.2. Your 10-15% sounds about right as MBA has inferior CPU

foiden
Dec 1, 2010, 07:04 AM
I'm using Safari. I always use Safari, actually. I only go to Firefox if, for some reason, a site is coded with some hacks (or bugs) that throw Safari off.

TheSacredSoul
Dec 1, 2010, 07:12 AM
I have the 128gb MBA 13" with 4gb ram and the CPU usage was around 23%-27% playing the Avatar trailer on 1080p. No idea on battery effect though.

P.S. The 1080p Avatar trailer is epic!

foiden
Dec 1, 2010, 07:19 AM
Strange. The Big Bunny one fluctuated. When I first started it, I did notice the first Major optimization. It pretty much fluctuated between 30-40% CPU usage combined between the Flash Player (taking the most) and Safari. The fans were soft, though, and only mildly operated at this time. About halfway through the video, while still playing exactly the same, the total CPU usage dropped to somewhere between 15 and 18%, the fan completely shut off, and it got a bit cooler than when I first started it. I'm curious as to what happened there. Mind you, in order to see the movie near full screen and the activity monitor, I basically used the pop-out function to have the window take up the desktop, where I can still decide to display the activity monitor in front of it.

Edit: Avatar trailer was about the same for me. Nothing quite as low as 10% except for temporary hits into it, but then I'm combining both Flash plugin CPU use and the Safari CPU use, which I'm guessing is what you need to do. On the other hand, the fan didn't even come on for Avatar. The Battery indicator said I should get around 4-4:30 hours of straight playback of this kind of video through Youtube, now. So it seems the Big Bunny pushes the 1080p power envelope a bit more than the Avatar trailer.

All in all, a definite *on the right track* movement for adobe flash player. These optimizations were a long time coming, but they're getting there. A little more, and I could match the rated 11" 1.4GHZ battery life while playing these videos. And that's saying a lot.

Sunwalker
Dec 1, 2010, 08:18 AM
Scrolling pages with flash content is even more laggy in Safari 5 with Flash 10.2 :(

iNotion
Dec 1, 2010, 08:30 AM
Until the day Apple make peace with Adobe, my default browser on my MBA will be Chrome.

I hope they get along!! I need them both! Apple + Adobe.

WorldIRC
Dec 1, 2010, 09:02 AM
32 bit beta, not 64 yet?

foiden
Dec 1, 2010, 09:27 AM
Yeah. Just 32-bit so far. Would be nice with a 64-bit version, but it still seems like an improvement, at least for video. I'm using click-to-flash so I'm not so sure about issues with page scrolling with flash content. I tend to not see ads or any flash unless I specifically want to see it.

Over Achiever
Dec 1, 2010, 12:22 PM
32 bit beta, not 64 yet?

Would I see a difference depending on which bit version I use on the new MBAs?

Hellhammer
Dec 1, 2010, 12:26 PM
Would I see a difference depending on which bit version I use on the new MBAs?

Doubt it. 64-bit can use more RAM but that's not an issue for Flash because it should never use more than what 32-bit can offer (~3.3GB). Some heavier apps may benefit from 64-bitfulness but Flash shouldn't. Better HA support and stuff like that have bigger effect

centymeat
Dec 1, 2010, 11:23 PM
Wow, playing 1080p avatar /dark knight video on youtube,

I am getting less than 25% CPU% for safari + flash player,

I tested with 10.1, i was getting somewhere around 70%

I tried playing 2 1080p videos at the same time and the CPU usage was hovering around 90-95%.

That's amazing!

teski
Dec 2, 2010, 12:48 AM
Impressive indeed! Turned off Click2Flash and the YouTube5 extension, and then ran the Avatar trailer...Didn't hit over 20%.

iNotion
Dec 2, 2010, 01:23 AM
Sooo this is the update that the Adobe CEO is talking about?:confused:

Andreas Grauel
Dec 2, 2010, 01:24 AM
The new flash plugin seems pretty good, but still I do prefer html5.

poobear
Dec 2, 2010, 09:21 AM
Umm, ustream with 10.1: ~70%. ustream with 10.2: ~80%. Did I miss something or is this something that only benefits Youtube atm?

potentpotable
Dec 2, 2010, 02:28 PM
The new flash plugin seems pretty good, but still I do prefer html5.

How do you watch HTML5 on YouTube? I am part of the trial, but I think all my videos are still played in Flash, since turning on FlashBlock displays the icon.

weckart
Dec 2, 2010, 02:29 PM
Not seeing any real benefit with 10.2 tbh. Running 64bit OSX here, the flashplayer is getting over 100% on my quadcore with YT and the Nvidia PureVideo sample clip. Avatar started at 95% and settled around 60%. Nowhere near the 10% others are claiming.

poobear
Dec 2, 2010, 02:51 PM
How do you watch HTML5 on YouTube? I am part of the trial, but I think all my videos are still played in Flash, since turning on FlashBlock displays the icon.
One popular solution is to install this Safari extension http://www.verticalforest.com/2010/10/27/youtube5-version-2/

Mannaerts
Dec 2, 2010, 02:55 PM
Well i installed Flash today on my new MBA but i don't get the grey bar anymore when i play Youtube. (grey bar is the bar with the sound & resolution setting etc)
Instead i'm getting a black bar where i can just put my sound and change it from windowed to full screen, but without a button to change it to 1080p for instance.

Any help? thx

Andreas Grauel
Dec 2, 2010, 02:56 PM
How do you watch HTML5 on YouTube? I am part of the trial, but I think all my videos are still played in Flash, since turning on FlashBlock displays the icon.

I use the youtube5 extension that poobear already pointed out ( http://www.verticalforest.com/2010/10/27/youtube5-version-2/ )

Bill Gates
Dec 2, 2010, 03:02 PM
Not seeing any real benefit with 10.2 tbh. Running 64bit OSX here, the flashplayer is getting over 100% on my quadcore with YT and the Nvidia PureVideo sample clip. Avatar started at 95% and settled around 60%. Nowhere near the 10% others are claiming.
Are you using a GPU that supports hardware acceleration under OS X?

weckart
Dec 3, 2010, 12:01 AM
Are you using a GPU that supports hardware acceleration under OS X?

D'oh! Forgot about that. It's still only the 9400M and 320M, isn't it? MBA arrives today, so will try on that.

tmoerel
Dec 3, 2010, 01:16 AM
How do you watch HTML5 on YouTube? I am part of the trial, but I think all my videos are still played in Flash, since turning on FlashBlock displays the icon.

If you install the click-to-flash in safari, youtube will default to playing html and at the same time you can choose yourself if and when you want to play flash in the webpages you browse to.

agav
Dec 3, 2010, 03:13 AM
64 bit should be this one:
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_square.html

A bit hidden on their page an no mentioning of GPU acceleration, but it's definitely in there. Guess they just don't advertise it.

archipellago
Dec 3, 2010, 04:28 AM
Funny how a positive story on Flash, backing up what adobe has always said is not advertised on the front page anywhere.

yet a negative one would be page 1 headline.

anyone still believe anything Jobs says?

vd0t
Dec 3, 2010, 05:38 AM
Funny how a positive story on Flash, backing up what adobe has always said is not advertised on the front page anywhere.

yet a negative one would be page 1 headline.

anyone still believe anything Jobs says?

How true..

foiden
Dec 3, 2010, 05:41 AM
What does this have to do with what Jobs said? This update is something new, and yes, adobe's plan to release flash versions better optimized for machines like the MacBook air was news displayed up-front. I think everybody heard about that. But this still comes long after the issues were brought up about flash. Without such front page news about adobe's slow to move on supporting platforms, you probably wouldn't even have stuff like this happening.

They'd be in the same boat as Sony or Nintendo, who have long supported flash in their browsers and haven't gotten one update in eons. So they have nice flash players that can't play jack, completely defeating the purpose of having flash in the first place.

On the other hand, this is adobe's kind of silent beta release, so I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't made a big deal yet. I've hardly heard of any beta by them being a big headline. Let's wait for the full release with it, to find out how it affects headlines. Note that even iOS 4.2 was pretty much kept silent (outside of the rumor mill here) until the full release.

archipellago
Dec 3, 2010, 06:25 AM
What does this have to do with what Jobs said? This update is something new, and yes, adobe's plan to release flash versions better optimized for machines like the MacBook air was news displayed up-front. I think everybody heard about that. But this still comes long after the issues were brought up about flash. Without such front page news about adobe's slow to move on supporting platforms, you probably wouldn't even have stuff like this happening.

They'd be in the same boat as Sony or Nintendo, who have long supported flash in their browsers and haven't gotten one update in eons. So they have nice flash players that can't play jack, completely defeating the purpose of having flash in the first place.

On the other hand, this is adobe's kind of silent beta release, so I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't made a big deal yet. I've hardly heard of any beta by them being a big headline. Let's wait for the full release with it, to find out how it affects headlines. Note that even iOS 4.2 was pretty much kept silent (outside of the rumor mill here) until the full release.

ya see, thats the point there were NO issues with flash before this and there was then and there still isn't now, any viable alternatives to do ALL that flash can do.

you don't think that if they both wanted to that Apple and Adobe couldn't make a really good version of flash for iOS and OSX?

really..??

Apple ported their complete OSX to a new platform in under 8 months!!

Apple trying to push flash away from all their platforms has ZERO to do with any technical limitations and all to do with what flash could do to Apples bottom line from the app store....

you also think its co-incidence that Apple's attack on Adobe ramped up as the plans for Lion (Mac App store) were finalised?


naive doesn't come close...

Pressure
Dec 3, 2010, 06:33 AM
Funny how a positive story on Flash, backing up what adobe has always said is not advertised on the front page anywhere.

yet a negative one would be page 1 headline.

anyone still believe anything Jobs says?

So you are saying it is ok it only took 10 years to get a workable version of flash out and it only works on the MacBook Air?

How does this help the other notebooks in Apple's lineup? Yeah, it doesn't.

And last, it is beta.

The point is, that flash on Mac OS X is still a pile of baboons vomit.

dekadent
Dec 3, 2010, 07:14 AM
Apple ported their complete OSX to a new platform in under 8 months!!


Incorrect.

ul1984
Dec 3, 2010, 07:31 AM
Anyone else noticing that kernel_task seems to taking up a lot of (15-20%) cpu usage while playing back video using flash? (doesn't seem to matter which version; 10.1 or 10.2 beta), at least on the MBP 13" 2010 and also tried on the 2009 model

Haven't had time to investigate that much, it might be somewhat related to the network traffic tho, badly coded wifi driver?? But even after having cached the whole youtube clip, it still eats up a bit(7-10%) a lot while the video is playing, will be hard to reach 0% total cpu usage, with kernel_task eating up that much..

When the computer is idle it kernel_task seems to hover around 1-2% cpu usage

beg_ne
Dec 3, 2010, 07:31 AM
So am I supposed to be impressed?

beg_ne
Dec 3, 2010, 07:45 AM
To compare here is the Avatar trailer using the YouTube5 extension to force h.264.

Yeah, that pretty much says it all.

archipellago
Dec 3, 2010, 07:51 AM
Incorrect.

true it was probably less than that...!

So you are saying it is ok it only took 10 years to get a workable version of flash out and it only works on the MacBook Air?

How does this help the other notebooks in Apple's lineup? Yeah, it doesn't.

And last, it is beta.

The point is, that flash on Mac OS X is still a pile of baboons vomit.

Its more than ok,especially given the lack of support they've had from the platform.

Adobe needs access to key API's to make flash run better, support they haven't had.

Ever wonder why the GPU acceleration only works on some cards but not others?

I have no problem with Apple doing anything they want with their platform.I just think that for once they should be HONEST about the reasons why..

Bill Gates
Dec 3, 2010, 10:51 AM
D'oh! Forgot about that. It's still only the 9400M and 320M, isn't it? MBA arrives today, so will try on that.
Only the Nvidia GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M, and GeForce GT 330M are supported. This is a limitation of OS X, not of Flash Player.

foiden
Dec 3, 2010, 10:58 AM
The APIs may be a good reason for Adobe, if they really indeed were trying to get those APIs from the beginning. Then again, it took them quite a bit of time for the PCs, as well. Not sure if it was because they were getting the same issue from Microsoft or not. Wonder if those other companies are holding APIs from Adobe?

dhartlen
Dec 3, 2010, 11:10 AM
Hey everyone,

Forgive me for hijacking this thread (1st Mac is on the way, should be here today is FedEx holds up their end).

If I'm running Chrome, will I still need to install Flash? If so, what's the benefit?

Cheers,

An :apple: newb

Hellhammer
Dec 3, 2010, 11:37 AM
Hey everyone,

Forgive me for hijacking this thread (1st Mac is on the way, should be here today is FedEx holds up their end).

If I'm running Chrome, will I still need to install Flash? If so, what's the benefit?

Cheers,

An :apple: newb

Chrome has built-in Flash. Problem with it is that you cannot upgrade it manually as Flash updates are included in Chrome updates. Thus you cannot use e.g. beta versions like the current 10.2 is. With Safari or other browsers you can select the Flash version of your choice

dhartlen
Dec 3, 2010, 12:13 PM
Chrome has built-in Flash. Problem with it is that you cannot upgrade it manually as Flash updates are included in Chrome updates. Thus you cannot use e.g. beta versions like the current 10.2 is. With Safari or other browsers you can select the Flash version of your choice

Makes sense -- thank you!

tivoboy
Dec 3, 2010, 12:22 PM
I upgraded to this version of flash on my pre-unibody MBP C2D2.4 4GB ram, it makes the fans run MORE OFTEN and spikes the CPU IMHO more than before. Wonder what is the best way to DOWNGRADE and REMOVE FLASH?

Bill Gates
Dec 3, 2010, 12:44 PM
I upgraded to this version of flash on my pre-unibody MBP C2D2.4 4GB ram, it makes the fans run MORE OFTEN and spikes the CPU IMHO more than before. Wonder what is the best way to DOWNGRADE and REMOVE FLASH?
There's a Flash Player uninstaller on Adobe's site. It should be linked from the same page you downloaded Flash Player 10.2 from.

Andrmgic
Dec 3, 2010, 12:56 PM
Here's the avatar trailer running on my 11.6" mba (1.4ghz, 2GB ram, 128GB ssd)

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8166/avatar1080p.th.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/i/avatar1080p.jpg/)

linuxcooldude
Dec 4, 2010, 12:42 AM
Also, when you're testing make sure not to use Google Chrome (my default browser). Chrome has its own Flash plug-in, and doesn't use Flash 10.2 even if it's installed in your system.

You can easily disable flash inside Google Chrome and use flash 10.2 installed in your system. See here:

http://lifehacker.com/5705588/how-to-get-the-flash-102-beta-working-in-google-chrome

D'oh! Forgot about that. It's still only the 9400M and 320M, isn't it? MBA arrives today, so will try on that.

I guess people are assuming it will only work on these chipsets, since previous flash for mac hardware acceleration only works on those before. ( Which it could very well still only support those chipsets ). In doing reading on flash 10.2 it does not mention on what graphic cards it will work on as far as I could tell. The only mac that I don't have those chipsets are my mac pro 8 core using ATI 4870 which is very hard to tell if its using hardware acceleration based on CPU usage alone. Did compare 10.2 and older version and was showing 2%-3% on the 10.2 and around 3%-4% using older flash plugin. Not the most accurate way of testing though.

zigver
Dec 4, 2010, 02:08 AM
Why the large variations in performance? I get 50-60% for avatar on a 13" MBA 2.13Ghz.

linuxcooldude
Dec 4, 2010, 02:24 AM
Why the large variations in performance? I get 50-60% for avatar on a 13" MBA 2.13Ghz.

It was done on a 8 core mac pro. I was talking in reference to graphic card support perhaps there might be in more then just the 9400M & 320M.

zigver
Dec 4, 2010, 02:29 AM
It was done on a 8 core mac pro. I was talking in reference to graphic card support perhaps there might be in more then just the 9400M & 320M.

Sorry, my question was in relation to other MBAs. For instance, Andrmgic has a lower spec MBA than mine yet is much lower utilization.

Hellhammer
Dec 4, 2010, 02:36 AM
Sorry, my question was in relation to other MBAs. For instance, Andrmgic has a lower spec MBA than mine yet is much lower utilization.

Did you check that you are really running the 10.2?

zigver
Dec 4, 2010, 03:27 AM
Did you check that you are really running the 10.2?

That was the first thing I checked; add-ons plugins show Flash 10.2.151.49.

I also tried it both in Safari and Firefox. Both of them still bog down the CPU.

Andrmgic
Dec 4, 2010, 03:10 PM
That was the first thing I checked; add-ons plugins show Flash 10.2.151.49.

I also tried it both in Safari and Firefox. Both of them still bog down the CPU.

What gpu is in your MBA?

it had higher cpu utilization when the video was still caching. it was around 30-40%.. after the video is fully cached/downloaded and it is just playing, it drops to around 20%..

I think there's a pretty big gap between the 9400M and the 320M..

potentpotable
Dec 4, 2010, 09:14 PM
Does anyone else's Flash 10.2 beta crash like crazy?

I'm running it on Firefox 4.0b7...and it crashes almost every time AFTER I watch a YouTube vid. Also crashes randomly on Facebook and other sites. What's going on?

MacBook08
Dec 4, 2010, 09:35 PM
I'm running it on Firefox 4.0b7...and it crashes almost every time AFTER I watch a YouTube vid. Also crashes randomly on Facebook and other sites. What's going on?
I've heard from others that it works well with Safari.

Does anyone else's Flash 10.2 beta crash like crazy?
It is still in beta, after all.

potentpotable
Dec 4, 2010, 10:22 PM
It is still in beta, after all.

I know, I just want to know if this is a common user experience.

Also, kind of unrelated, but I can't get HTML5 YouTube vids to work on my Firefox 4.0b7. :mad:

zigver
Dec 4, 2010, 11:21 PM
What gpu is in your MBA?

it had higher cpu utilization when the video was still caching. it was around 30-40%.. after the video is fully cached/downloaded and it is just playing, it drops to around 20%..

I think there's a pretty big gap between the 9400M and the 320M..

I have a 320M and after it is fully downloaded, I'm getting ~65% utilization.

MacBook08
Dec 5, 2010, 12:11 AM
I have a 320M and after it is fully downloaded, I'm getting ~65% utilization.

Did you uninstall the previous version of Flash? I personally don't know if it matters but Adobe really insists that you uninstall the previous version, first.

zigver
Dec 5, 2010, 01:11 AM
Did you uninstall the previous version of Flash? I personally don't know if it matters but Adobe really insists that you uninstall the previous version, first.

Ran the uninstaller. Also tried the 64bit version and it made no difference.

MacBook08
Dec 5, 2010, 01:30 AM
Ran the uninstaller. Also tried the 64bit version and it made no difference.

Sorry about that. This would definitely frustrate me. I guess only drastic measures remain like uninstalling and reinstalling Flash, which you've probably already done, or even doing a clean install of Snow Leopard.

Andreas Grauel
Dec 5, 2010, 03:32 AM
If you have problems regarding Flash 10.2 stop thinking about a clean install of Snow Leopard. Keep in mind that it is a Beta! Beta is usually meant for Developers and not for the normal user ;-)

Dammit Cubs
Dec 5, 2010, 04:40 AM
I installed the 10.2 beta and tested it with the avatar 1080p thats posted on this thread.

The 10.1 version gets about 75% CPU usage using 1080p
The 10.2 version gets about 30% CPU usage using 1080p

I did the experiment with a ultimate 11.6 1.6GHZ C2D

Andreas Grauel
Dec 5, 2010, 05:23 AM
I installed the 10.2 beta and tested it with the avatar 1080p thats posted on this thread.

The 10.1 version gets about 75% CPU usage using 1080p
The 10.2 version gets about 30% CPU usage using 1080p

I did the experiment with a ultimate 11.6 1.6GHZ C2D


That sounds pretty good, but still not as good as html5

archipellago
Dec 5, 2010, 05:38 AM
That sounds pretty good, but still not as good as html5

maybe because html5 can't do half of what flash can do..?

foiden
Dec 5, 2010, 07:20 AM
HTML5 plays video. That's pretty much what they were comparing to. In most practical applications, the only true limitation people see with HTML5 is the lack of the ability of games and non-movie animations allowing real-time triggered audio. This means, as of right now, if you want flash programs and games to use sound (other than some embedded background music that plays through the whole thing, or this is a movie), you need to do it in flash.

The thing is, if you want a real test to see the difference, you have to compare Youtube 720p flash to html5 720p since you can't get it to play html5 1080p.

dmelgar
Dec 5, 2010, 10:29 AM
How do you check the version of Flash installed?

I have an ultimate MBA 11", and even in Safari, running what I think is version 10.2 of flash, I see CPU util just for flash go as high as 120% while playing the Avatar trailer in 1080p. And thats even after waiting for it to download the whole trailer.

If it says I'm running an older version of flash, what am I supposed to do to fix it? I installed 10.2.

Update:
I ran the uninstaller then installed 10.2. Now its reporting 20% instead of 120% CPU util.

foiden
Dec 5, 2010, 12:33 PM
Yeah. Apparently the flash 10.2 beta doesn't cleanly install over an older version of flash. That's why they distribute the uninstaller with it, they mention to run that first, then install 10.2. If you don't, you have some of two flash engines running and it chews up major hardware.

deedas
Dec 5, 2010, 07:07 PM
I've installed it on my MBA and I regret it a bit. Doesn't play nice with Safari extensions and I don't see much improvement. Fans kicks in more than I'd like. Still better than the craptastic copy of Flash bundled with Chrome. That thing kicked in my fans on max and killed 45% of my battery playing a 42 minute episode of Castle on Hulu. Anyone knows if Chrome even uses 10.1? The performance under Chrome was so bad I really think there was no gpu help there.

Edit: PS. I did not have another version of Flash installed when I tried Chrome.

smetvid
Dec 5, 2010, 08:49 PM
Just wanted to point out that currently not all video on the Web will experience the performance boost from 10.2. There is a new video API in Flash 10.2 that is pretty easy to use but it must be used for Flash to take full advantage of the gpu. So some of you will notice certain videos playing as well as with 10.1. The API is very easy to use however and it is only a matter of time before all Flash video players are updated to support the gpu enhancements with 10.2.

10.2 also adds amazing vector compositing over video. dozens of animated vector sprites can be overlayed over playing video all on the gpu. This of course was possible before but it really took a hit on some systems.

asoksevil
Dec 18, 2010, 02:22 AM
I just tested this new flash version and it seems that it still doesn't beat YouTube5 v2 extension, I get almost 25-30% CPU usage without Safari so in total would be nearly 40% but using YouTube5, I get the same result plus Safari.

mark28
Dec 18, 2010, 03:46 AM
HTML5 plays video. That's pretty much what they were comparing to. In most practical applications, the only true limitation people see with HTML5 is the lack of the ability of games and non-movie animations allowing real-time triggered audio. This means, as of right now, if you want flash programs and games to use sound (other than some embedded background music that plays through the whole thing, or this is a movie), you need to do it in flash.

The thing is, if you want a real test to see the difference, you have to compare Youtube 720p flash to html5 720p since you can't get it to play html5 1080p.

Yeah, I can't play Poker with HTML5. So Flash > HMTL 5.

Who cares it uses 40% CPU on youtube. It plays fine without a problem.

Deshke
Dec 18, 2010, 04:24 AM
don't really care about the CPU usage ... :) i want to know the battery life after the flash update

The Phazer
Dec 18, 2010, 07:43 AM
HTML5 plays video.

Not if you want to deliver that video well with dynamic bit rates depending on connection quality, or if you need any form of stream ripping protection (which like it or not most professional video does).

Phazer

zstar
Dec 18, 2010, 08:27 AM
On a 13" ultimate here and 1080p avatar trailer playback is at average 30% throughout, no spikes or peaks, even at the beginning when I clicked the play button. 20% flash plugin and 10% safari. Pretty damn impressive.

Note: I was STREAMING the video from youtube, not downloaded yet.

dmelgar
Dec 18, 2010, 08:29 AM
don't really care about the CPU usage ... :) i want to know the battery life after the flash update
CPU usage is what determines battery life. The lower the CPU usage, the longer the battery life.

darrellishere
Dec 18, 2010, 08:30 AM
Mine goes down to 8-10% cpu usage on YouTube 720p and stays unbelievably cool compared to my revision B.

I havent even heard the fans come on yet!!! Cool Cat!

kappax12
Dec 18, 2010, 09:33 AM
just installed the flash 10.3, its the 64bit ver of this beta, so here are my results so far:

youtube avatar 1080p trailer, fully downloaded before playing on youtube
regular 10.1 flash: cpu about 30%, safari 2%
beta 10.3 flash 64bit: cpu about 12%, safari 2%
youtube5 ver2: safari cpu about 15%

so from these result, clearly its a better performance than the regular flash.
total cpu from the last 2 is around 15% each. not bad, since i have clicktoflash, i think i run with the adobe flash instead of the youtube5 ext. on safari, this would eliminate unwanted flash video to play if using youtube5.

Over Achiever
Dec 18, 2010, 09:54 AM
just installed the flash 10.3, its the 64bit ver of this beta

Can you provide a link?

KPOM
Dec 18, 2010, 10:38 AM
just installed the flash 10.3, its the 64bit ver of this beta, so here are my results so far:
.

Do you mean Flash Player Square?

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/square/

KPOM
Dec 18, 2010, 11:32 AM
just installed the flash 10.3, its the 64bit ver of this beta, so here are my results so far:

youtube avatar 1080p trailer, fully downloaded before playing on youtube
regular 10.1 flash: cpu about 30%, safari 2%
beta 10.3 flash 64bit: cpu about 12%, safari 2%
youtube5 ver2: safari cpu about 15%


I did a quick experiment using the Speed Imax preview video at 1080p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6_MkIvKOo&feature=player_embedded

Flash 10.1 used about 50-70% of the CPU and about 70MB of RAM
Flash 10.2 32-bit used about 15-20% of the CPU and about 70MB of RAM
Flash 10.2 64-bit used about 13-19% of the CPU and about 120MB of RAM

Bosep
Dec 18, 2010, 04:24 PM
This is truly amazing, I have an old unibody 2.0 ghz from 2008, It had a "hard" time playing 720p movies on youtube. The fan went mad and with 1080p it took 90-100% CPU power and the fan at 6000 rpm. And some lag.

And now? 1080p movies at youtube only takes about 15-25 % on my old unibody macbook and no lag and nooo fan :D 2000 rpm :D Good job apple for pushing adobe to fix flash !.

kappax12
Dec 18, 2010, 06:38 PM
Do you mean Flash Player Square?

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/square/


Yes you are correct, is this the same as the beta 10.2, but just 64bit?

KPOM
Dec 18, 2010, 07:45 PM
Yes you are correct, is this the same as the beta 10.2, but just 64bit?

That's what it appears to be, according to the name of the download file. The 64-bit version is likely more significant for Windows users than Mac users, since IE 64-bit can't run 32-bit add-ons (while Safari 64-bit can).

Andreas Grauel
Dec 19, 2010, 02:04 AM
That's what it appears to be, according to the name of the download file. The 64-bit version is likely more significant for Windows users than Mac users, since IE 64-bit can't run 32-bit add-ons (while Safari 64-bit can).

Does it matter? There is a Mac Version available and it works better so use it ;-)

Mac32
Dec 19, 2010, 03:19 AM
beta 10.3 also has hardware (gpu) accelleration right?

Hellhammer
Dec 19, 2010, 03:22 AM
beta 10.3 also has hardware (gpu) accelleration right?

Yes

Mac32
Dec 19, 2010, 08:27 AM
You can forget about flash 10.3, there's a bug..the menu bar won't disappear when watching flash movies in fullscreen, at least on youtube.com. Back to 10.2...:confused:

KPOM
Dec 19, 2010, 09:23 AM
Does it matter? There is a Mac Version available and it works better so use it ;-)

However, for us, there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions that both offer the hardware acceleration features, and which both work with Safari. Thus, the question is whether the 64-bit version offers any benefits in exchange for its additional use of memory.

fswmacguy
Dec 19, 2010, 09:31 AM
However, for us, there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions that both offer the hardware acceleration features, and which both work with Safari. Thus, the question is whether the 64-bit version offers any benefits in exchange for its additional use of memory.

Question: The Flash 10.3 "Square" beta release is essentially just the 10.2+64-bit. Would my 2GB MBA benefit from the "Square" release despite not utilizing 64-bit software?

Mac32
Dec 19, 2010, 09:35 AM
From my limited testing, it seemed the 64bit version "Square"/10.3b used noticably less system resources than the 32bit version. However, I couldn't stand having that menu bar constantly showing when looking at videos in full screen, so I switched back to 10.2b (32bit). Hopefully Adobe will find the bug and fix it, since it is a rather obvious one...

double329
Dec 19, 2010, 08:15 PM
I installed the flash 10.3b 64bit. I also did about:plugins and disabled the Chrome built-in. then enable the 10.3b. From Activity monitor, I still see shockwave flash as 32bit???

KPOM
Dec 19, 2010, 09:47 PM
Question: The Flash 10.3 "Square" beta release is essentially just the 10.2+64-bit. Would my 2GB MBA benefit from the "Square" release despite not utilizing 64-bit software?

There isn't much benefit to 64-bit with less than 4GB. My suggestion is to stick with the 32-bit 10.2 beta. It uses less memory and it still provides the hardware acceleration, which is the biggest benefit to the Flash beta.