Why is flash handling subpar?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by daneoni, Apr 21, 2007.

  1. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #1
    I was just at this BlackBerry site and my CPU percentage jumped to a range of 54-49% and fans started kicking in. Windows fares better. By the way this is a Core 2 Duo notebook. I kept thinking to myself.."i wonder how a G4 would fare".

    Why does it take so many CPU cycles, is flash handling just not great in OS X?
     
  2. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #2
    I have a dual 500 Mhz G4 PowerMac and I just went to your Blackberry Pearl site. My CPU percentage jumped as high as 94%.
     
  3. Echoes macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Location:
    47º20'N 79º26'W
    #3
    Flash on Mac OS X is a joke. Nothing beats a slow computer for pointing out poorly written code. In my case, a B&W G3 @ 400 MHz / original Radeon. The Blackberry Pearl site makes my old G3 sluggish and unresponsive. The flash animation performed not more than 3 frames per second. Closing the browser window took as much as 8 seconds.

    By comparison, my old Pentium II/350/GEForce2MX200 performs A LOT better on the same site.

    Flash on Mac OS X is slug on valium.
     
  4. epochblue macrumors 68000

    epochblue

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #4
    Does your CPU do that with every flash page you visit or just the BlackBerry site? If it doesn't jump that high with every flash site you visit, I'm going to lay the blame partly on the Blackberry site's flash.

    I'd still submit this to the WebKit team, though, so they can take a look at what's causing the slowdown and fix it.
     
  5. AliensAreFuzzy macrumors 68000

    AliensAreFuzzy

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    #5
    I notice flash is pretty crappy too. Safari sometimes even crashes because of flash pages. It's really annoying
     
  6. Diatribe macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #6
    Weren't webkit nightlies recently improved to deliver better Flash performance? I thought I read something like that.
     
  7. Vinnie_vw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    #7
    On my iBook 1,33 G4 it's between 65-75 % CPU, which is not great. And using the latest Webkit. It's around the same with the latest Camino-nightly.

    That said, the animation on the BB-site looks pretty fancy, maybe some rendering being done, etc.? So I wouldn't want to generalise this for all flash.
     
  8. daneoni thread starter macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #8
    The pearl site may be OTT but even Youtube or CNet videos make my percentage jump to around 30%..maybe 20% on a good day.
     
  9. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
  10. Flynnstone macrumors 65816

    Flynnstone

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Cold beer land
    #10
    I just went to the site on my P4 3.4 GHz running Windows 2000 and Firefox browser. Hyperthreading turned on.
    I get about 45%, which would I think translate to about 90% with hyperthreading turned off.

    So ... it looks cool ... but ...
     
  11. natemonster macrumors member

    natemonster

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    #11
    core duo mac mini and i get that too. its got really intesvive graphics though. i don't see that much of a problem.
     
  12. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #12
    On my 2x2.5 GHz G5 PM I got 55% (of 1 CPU) in Safari and 65% with Firefox 1.5. On my 2.33 C2D MBP I get 50% (of 1 CPU) with Safari.
     
  13. epochblue macrumors 68000

    epochblue

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #13
    Oh, I realize that the WebKit team has some work to do getting Flash to be more efficient, but my point was simply that I don't usually see spikes in CPU utilization like that on other flash sites. Therefore, the site itself it (at least) partly to blame.
     
  14. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #14
    Maybe I'm missing something, but Flash content is handled by the Flash browser plugin, no? I update mine fairly regularly - r45 just came out earlier this month.
     
  15. Blubbert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    #15
    Using Opera, i managed to get 38% used on my MBP. The flash support on Mac needs some work.
     
  16. redeye be macrumors 65816

    redeye be

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Location:
    BXL
    #16
    Yep, Flash sucks bigtime on Mac OS.

    I might try and download a newer version, maybe it helps (a bit).

    Adobe should clean this up asap
     
  17. daneoni thread starter macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #17
    Installed adobe flash 9....no noticeable difference. Oh well...
     
  18. rbirkby macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    #18
    First of all, a reinstall of Flash according to this page helps make Flash faster:
    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=2dda3d81

    Secondly, nearly 100% of a single core is taken up with downloading content. For example, while watching a YouTube video, Flash downloads the video in the background while I'm watching. During this download phase, the video runs very slowly and a core is at 100%. After the video has finished downloading (but while I'm still watching), the video runs at normal speed and a core drops to, perhaps 4%. I've yet to find a solution to this second problem.

    [MacBook 2Ghz Core Duo, 2Gb, OSX10.4.9, Flash 9,0,28,0]
     
  19. rbirkby macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    #19
    Upgrading to 9,0,45,0 has fixed the high CPU while downloading issue. Or perhaps this was fixed by simply restarting Firefox?...
     
  20. Vinnie_vw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    #20
    a re-install didn't decrease the % by much on my G4 iBook. But again, I wouldn't call this the average flash-site.
     
  21. iJawn108 macrumors 65816

    iJawn108

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #21
    Hahaha it's killing my machine to. Thats poor webdesign at it's best, it has nothing to do with webkit and everything to do with the site dev not doing enough testing.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  22. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #22
    So that's less than 20% of overall system resources, right? Since there are two cores, and so processor usage can be as high as 200%. How much lower is the expectation? Do you really expect that site to run in 5% of one core? Does it do that for anyone in Windows with a CD or C2D?
     
  23. bdemers macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    #23
    From an older Windows PC...

    P4 2.4 GHz, averaging 90% CPU utilization (only one core)...

    Framerate looked surprisingly decent. But yeah, a crazy site.
     
  24. lostless macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    #24
    on my MDD G4 867mhz duel. 125% of CPU time. didnt notice the lag due to haveing 2 cores. I was supprised.
     
  25. Vinnie_vw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    #25
    The grandparent makes a good point about Flash in general though. While I am very impressed with the wealth of online services Flash has been able to deliver us, the technology is definitely not efficient. Feels like Java kind of. I think Adobe still has ways to go before it can convince us to let go of our desktop software. Incidentally, I did go to other flash-based sites and CPU-usage was not low.

    BTW, a nice feature of Camino is the ability to prevent Flash from loading automatically. At least that will let you experience the "experience" when you want to.
     

Share This Page