Flash 10.1 updated with hardware acceleration support, codenamed "Gala"

[Beric]

I could give you a rough usage of before/after

Before: 34-50% CPU was idle while doing Flash in background, if I watched the video, that number decreased to 20-30%. Result: CPU increased temperatures to 80*C and thus fan kicked up to 5400rpm.

After: CPU barely hits 60% idle. (Which is good, higher idling, better). Temperatures increased to 74*C, but not enough to kick the fan higher than 3200rpm.

Thanks for the numbers. Looking good right now; I'll assume it'll only get better.

Does adobe get a pass on older systems? This fix is not going to work for any of the five macs that I have... When are they going to just plain ol' fix flash?

I usually don't have issues with well made flash pages (other than typical flash is stupid issues... load screens? come on people) I have serious issues with all these poorly made flash ads (and the system to deliver them) that locks up safari for up to ten minutes at a time. This is why i love the app store (and apple making hardware ad software) and why a free-for-all environment leads to issues.

AFAIK, the 9600M GT isn't supported. Dumbass move to be honest. It you have a MBP, you need to switch to the lower 9400M just to get hardware playback.

Remember, Steve Jobs has said Adobe is lazy. Adobe has said similar things about Apple, and also has said Apple is intentionally trying to derail support. Either way you take it, not looking good for high-performance Flash on the Mac.

 

[MikhailT]

In order words, Apple only had itself to blame for poor flash performance all along.

Go figure.

You do realize that what Apple did was create an API that gives low level HW access for h.264 videos and as such applies to any software and has nothing to do with Flash overall? Any non-video flash will continue to suck as hard as it did before.

Do you also realize that this also proves why Apple prefer open source solutions which allows Apple to take the source code and tune it for their hardware and OS without exposing their hardware to software developers?

 

[Peace]

That's actually Apple's fault, the only GPU's Apple has written GPU acceleration drivers for were the three listed above.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
"QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
requires a Mac with an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, GeForce 320M, or GeForce GT 330M graphics processor."

I believe those are minimum specs. The ATI 4850 has been able to use use it according to dev. docs.

 

[jav6454]

I believe those are minimum specs. The ATI 4850 has been able to use use it according to dev. docs.

That maybe so, but it is still not supported officially.

 

[aiqw9182]

I believe those are minimum specs. The ATI 4850 has been able to use use it according to dev. docs.

Every GPU in Apple's current line can do it. Apple just hasn't written any drivers for it so until then you won't be getting any support for your GPU.

 

[Mr.Texor]

In order words, Apple only had itself to blame for poor flash performance all along.

Go figure.

Not entirely. Flash is bad at non-video content too. Thankfully, for 10.1 they are changing several things to make it better. You can read more about the changes here:
http://www.kaourantin.net/2010/02/core-animation.html

In short, for safari they are moving from using Quartz 2D for animation and now using Core animation. This change makes it a lot faster. Other browsers will not get Core animation unfortunately, only Safari.

Quick question for those using the new hardware accelerated beta, does it help Hulu's playback? How about Comedy's central videos?

 

[jav6454]

Every GPU in Apple's current line can do it. Apple just hasn't written any drivers for it so until then you won't be getting any support for your GPU.

And they won't. They want people to upgrade.

 

[grahamnp]

I've got a RadeonX1600 and it's speeding up my youtube video viewing on 1080p videos BIG time.

Are you sure? If I understood correctly, the 9600, 8600 and x1600 are not supported. Basically all the discrete models used in the previous generation MBPs.

 

[Sedulous]

MBP 17" 2.8GHz before and after flash update:

%User CPU activity before: 33%
%User CPU activity after: 9%

 

[otis123]

No support for the 9600mGt? That's odd.

 

[jav6454]

MBP 17" 2.8GHz before and after flash update:

%User CPU activity before: 33%
%User CPU activity after: 9%

That sucks

 

[aiqw9182]

And they won't. They want people to upgrade.

Err, there isn't anything to upgrade to. I said Apple's current line.

 

[jav6454]

Err, there isn't anything to upgrade to. I said Apple's current line.

oh, lol, my bad

 

[Eidorian]

I'm still pessimistic about support outside of a limited nVidia lineup.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

MBP 17" 2.8GHz before and after flash update:

%User CPU activity before: 33%
%User CPU activity after: 9%

That sucks

Care to explain why that sucks? As I see it, less CPU usage is a good thing. It means the update actually worked.

 

[Sedulous]

Care to explain why that sucks? As I see it, less CPU usage is a good thing. It means the update actually worked.

Exactly what I was trying to show. It surprised me what a big difference it seemed to make. I don't know if I care for the little white square. BTW, I used Hulu for video.

 

[jav6454]

Care to explain why that sucks? As I see it, less CPU usage is a good thing. It means the update actually worked.

I was actually thinking those numbers meant CPU idling percentages.

 

[MikhailT]

The 10.6.4 beta seed did mention graphic drivers update, we could see an extended support for the GPUs.

 

[Sedulous]

The 10.6.4 beta seed did mention graphic drivers update, we could see an extended support for the GPUs.

I guess I could have been more clear. So yes, the CPU usage went down 75% or so. I should also mention that this was using the 9400M. I have not tried to see if the 9600M is supported (it seems clear from earlier posts that it probably is not).

EDIT: That little white square still appears when using the 9600M. CPU usage was around 9%.

 

[BaronStein]

No big difference, still a cpu hog!

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Shantanu Narayen probably paid a couple of guys down in California/India to work overtime and implement the new beta just so jobs could eat his "Adobe is Lazy" words. It's funny to see you all rejoice and start complaining about the limited supported hardware lol.

 

[designgeek]

It seems to be working well, I'm looking at about 20% reduction in CPU utilization (2008 Unibody 15" 2.53ghz running 9400M), which translates to about 15-20ºF cooler. Makes hulu.com much more tolerable, youtube as well. I'm still not turning off click to flash though.

 

[nagromme]

This is great—but I’m more interested in Adobe’s OTHER performance fixes—hopefully fixing the speed problems that have plagued Flash long before H.264 video acceleration was even around. This one little instance (of H.264 format video on certain machines able to decode in hardware) is irrelevant to most of Flash’s past problems.

Nice to see Apple and Adobe working together a little, anyway!

 

[rworne]

I'm still pessimistic about support outside of a limited nVidia lineup.

And you'd be right. Apple's support of older machines (and not too old) isw really lacking, so to push sales of newer systems. There's still quite a few GPUs that can support Snow Leopard's OpenCL that simply aren't being supported.

The Mac Pro line will be fixed soon enough, when the next harware refresh comes.

I'd still think the ATI 4850 will be included eventually, the list seems to mimic the OpenCL compatibility list and likely support will be available to anything that also can do OpenCL. Whether Apple chooses to do that is another matter.

 

[HyperZboy]

Quietly lost in the shuffle... the LAST PowerPC version of Flashplayer!

And I hardly knew ye, errr, a working version of Flash I meant. LOL

I think it's a safe bet that Adobe will leave PowerPC users with a lasting version that crashes Safari daily just to remind us of why we hate them so much.