- Feb 24, 2006
- 2,105
- 0
- 19,810
How much CPU power is needed to surf the internet? With flash becoming evermore ubiquitous in this age of high speed multimedia, can a single core CPU still keep up? Based on my experiences with one up-and-coming free TV website, Hulu.com, I have my doubts:
It's amazing to see that flash video can be so cpu intensive. Full screen flash video over at hulu.com uses on average 90% of both cores on a Pentium D 805 at 3.1 GHz. Resolution is 1280x1024. At stock 2.66 GHz the video is jittery all the time. The D 805 may be slow compared to modern CPUs, but it's still a little crazy to think that overclocking any dual core is necessary just to play fullscreen flash video over the internet. Even at 3.1 GHz, there is still occasional lag/dropped frames/fuzzy frames during scenes with very fast action shots. Firefox 2.0 was the browser used.
I would like others to try Hulu (it's free to the public now). Play a video fullscreen and post what your CPU usage and how the video looked (smooth or choppy, occasional dropped frame, etc.). I hope to get enough people responding for a good comparison. I especially want to know if any single core CPUs can keep up. I think the screen resolution is a big factor, so be sure to post your screen res, and also state what browser you're using, to see if there may be a difference between firefox and IE.
On a final note, we see benchmarks on this site all the time. How many frames in a game, how many 3Dmark points, how fast can it encode, etc., but this test of CPU strength is based in reality. After all, if a CPU can't even handle the internet, what's the point of all the other benchmarks? Flash video may not be a problem for most of us on this board, being enthusiasts we like to run some of the latest and greatest hardware, but what about our parents, siblings, and friends? Can their computers handle it? If you were to build someone you know an entry level system, how much CPU would they need to ensure a rich internet experience? Please, post up your results people. The forums are getting boring. Thanks.
It's amazing to see that flash video can be so cpu intensive. Full screen flash video over at hulu.com uses on average 90% of both cores on a Pentium D 805 at 3.1 GHz. Resolution is 1280x1024. At stock 2.66 GHz the video is jittery all the time. The D 805 may be slow compared to modern CPUs, but it's still a little crazy to think that overclocking any dual core is necessary just to play fullscreen flash video over the internet. Even at 3.1 GHz, there is still occasional lag/dropped frames/fuzzy frames during scenes with very fast action shots. Firefox 2.0 was the browser used.
I would like others to try Hulu (it's free to the public now). Play a video fullscreen and post what your CPU usage and how the video looked (smooth or choppy, occasional dropped frame, etc.). I hope to get enough people responding for a good comparison. I especially want to know if any single core CPUs can keep up. I think the screen resolution is a big factor, so be sure to post your screen res, and also state what browser you're using, to see if there may be a difference between firefox and IE.
On a final note, we see benchmarks on this site all the time. How many frames in a game, how many 3Dmark points, how fast can it encode, etc., but this test of CPU strength is based in reality. After all, if a CPU can't even handle the internet, what's the point of all the other benchmarks? Flash video may not be a problem for most of us on this board, being enthusiasts we like to run some of the latest and greatest hardware, but what about our parents, siblings, and friends? Can their computers handle it? If you were to build someone you know an entry level system, how much CPU would they need to ensure a rich internet experience? Please, post up your results people. The forums are getting boring. Thanks.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram