Adobe Flash: A Look At Browsers, Codecs, And System Performance

[acku]

I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I never said that Youtube had 4Mbps 1080p video. Our own table shows they have higher bit rate than 4 if you actually read the article. I was just making a point on the implications of having low bitrate and poor codec efficiency on overall picture quality.

 

[mariushm]

I'm sorry acku, it was a reply to jnxjcndsjcnjdnckjsdnjndckjdsnckj comments on the previous page. I should have quoted his comment so it's clear.

 

[Guest]

"If you really want to be pedantic, Youtube doesn't actually have 720p and 1080p at all, because these generally mean progressive content, therefore 50 or 60 frames per second. Youtube's content is 25-30 frames per second."

Incorrect. The frame rate has nothing to do with whether or not video is progressive. Motion pictures are done at 24p.

"1980x816 is 1080p in the most common understood sense - Youtube just went ahead and cut the black bars from the 1980x1080 rectangle to improve compression, because often video encoders have issues encoding the sharp difference between black bars and actual video content, therefore consuming precious bits."

Incorrect. The 1080p standard DOES NOT include black bars in it. Black bars appear when the resolution of your display is not 1080 x 1920 OR when the aspect ratio of the content is different from the 1080 x 1920 ratio.

These incorrect notions are EXACTLY why I insist that the technical details about digital video are listed correctly so that people can learn the RIGHT things and not the WRONG ones.

Making statements like

"That's the great thing about TomsHardware. The people here are smarter than you give them credit for.
." is completely childish and doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[klockwerk]

I turned flash off. What am I missing? A lot of commercials and advertising and that's a good thing. Screw Adobe.

 

[ddrum2000]

I liked this article as it pertains to PCs. I use both a Mac laptop and a PC desktop so I would be interested to see how the hardware based decoding for Flash and H.264 is handled on OSX. Similar tests: Safari, Firefox, Chrome, and possibly Camino. For non-streaming applications: VLC vs Quicktime.

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]ddrum2000[/nom]I liked this article as it pertains to PCs. I use both a Mac laptop and a PC desktop so I would be interested to see how the hardware based decoding for Flash and H.264 is handled on OSX. Similar tests: Safari, Firefox, Chrome, and possibly Camino. For non-streaming applications: VLC vs Quicktime.[/citation]

I'll try to make that happen the next go around for html5 vs. flash. However, I'll point out that I already explained a bit how flash works on the Apple side. You must have a discrete chip (nvidia for laptops) for h.264 hardware accelerated decoding.

 

[joefriday]

This article is sadly incorrect about the support of AMD integrated graphics chipsets. The Radeon HD3xxx series of IGPs are NOT SUPPORTED, as it must have UVD2, which initially launched on the 785G chipset, so only that chipset and the 8xx series IGPs have this capability.
Also, the newer 8400GS SUPPORTS HARDWARE FLASH. It is the 8 shader (and I think 16 shader) version on the G98 chip. I use one and it works well for hulu on a single core sempron rig.

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]joefriday[/nom]This article is sadly incorrect about the support of AMD integrated graphics chipsets. The Radeon HD3xxx series of IGPs are NOT SUPPORTED, as it must have UVD2, which initially launched on the 785G chipset, so only that chipset and the 8xx series IGPs have this capability. Also, the newer 8400GS SUPPORTS HARDWARE FLASH. It is the 8 shader (and I think 16 shader) version on the G98 chip. I use one and it works well for hulu on a single core sempron rig.[/citation]

Actually that would be my fault. I was only talking about the discrete side, but on the integrated side support starts at UVD+. http://blogs.amd.com/home/2010/06/10/amd-and-adobe-–-a-shared-vision-for-better-videos/
Article updated to clarify confusion.

As for the G8400GS... If you read the article then you know that I never implied that the 8400 GS did not support hardware acceleration for Flash video. I clearly stated : "It cannot decode source video with the following horizontal resolutions: 769–784, 849–864, 929–944, 1009–1024, 1793–1808, 1873–1888, 1953–1968 and 2033–2048 pixel." This is a restriction of the third gen of Purevideo. Please read Nvidia's own release notes. ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/190.53/README/appendix-h.html This is a hardware restriction that applies specifically to h.264 for the third generation of Purevideo supports.

 

[ricotrooper]

Anecdotal Experience with 10.2 beta: On a Win7(64) Atom/Ion nettop, upgrading to the beta greatly reduced stuttering on Hulu. I can't speak to the mechanism (especially given Andrew's note on 10.2) beyond assuming it's an x64 bug fix, or provide data as it's a friend's PC.

 

[Guest]

As a frequent Mac user. I would have liked to see where Flash stands in performance on OS X. I can certainly understand why Flash is shunned by Apple on its mobile OS. But I still wonder why Android and others are able to run Flash with little problems on Mobile. One thing is certain, Flash is very much a fickle Plugin that likes some hardware better then others.

 

[ph0b0s123]

This all very nice, but I am still using Flash 9 for, all videos that cannot be accelerated / machines with hardware that does not support acceleration. On my lower powered machines it allows flash streams to be played without stutter in comparision to 10.1. With 10.1 the video stutters a lot. But with ver 9 it does not due to the CPU being used less. On a athalon 64 it equate to about 10% less CPU utillisation. I know this sounds dumb, but it is completley reapeatable. I am suprised that this did not come up when the article authors tested previous versions of flash vs 10.1

Oh and before you ask ver 9 still gets security updates like ver 10.1 so that is not a worry.

 

[joefriday]

Actually that would be my fault. I was only talking about the discrete side, but on the integrated side support starts at UVD+. http://blogs.amd.com/home/2010/06/10/amd-and-adobe-–-a-shared-vision-for-better-videos/
Article updated to clarify confusion.

As for the G8400GS... If you read the article then you know that I never implied that the 8400 GS did not support hardware acceleration for Flash video. I clearly stated : "It cannot decode source video with the following horizontal resolutions: 769–784, 849–864, 929–944, 1009–1024, 1793–1808, 1873–1888, 1953–1968 and 2033–2048 pixel." This is a restriction of the third gen of Purevideo. Please read Nvidia's own release notes. ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/190.53/README/appendix-h.html This is a hardware restriction that applies specifically to h.264 for the third generation of Purevideo supports.

Sorry for the delayed reply to your response. As the to 8400 GS, you are correct, I did initially misread that portion of your article, thinking you stated that the 8400GS did not support hardware flash acceleration. You are also quite correct about the certain horizontal resolutions that are incompatible with the older pure video 3 hardware acceleration engine. However, it should be stated that only the more recent 8400GS has the ability to accelerate flash video, as prior to the G98 update, the older graphics core of the 8400GS completely lacked pure video 3, so all 32 shader models of the 8400GS are without flash acceleration capability, creating a 'buyer beware' scenario. Granted, the G98 update to the 8400GS was way back in 2007, but popular computer equipment sites like Newegg continue to sell both the old and new 8400GS simultaneously, so it should be mentioned to anyone looking for the absolute minimum hardware requirement for flash acceleration as to avoid a rude surprise later.

As to the ATI integrated chipset issue, I'm glad that you cleared up that confusion, as even adobe's first release of the flash player 10.1 beta release notes made it sound like UVD2 was the lowest requirement needed for hardware acceleration of flash video. With UVD+ supported, the 780G chipset should be able to accelerate flash video, but to say HD3000 integrated graphics and higher are supported, is a false assertion to make. For as I'm sure you are aware, the value-oriented 760G (HD3000 IGP) lacks UVD+ in order to distance it from the more powerful 780G. This is also true with the business-oriented 780V chipset (HD3100 IGP), as it also lacks UVD+. I understand that even AMD makes this false assertion when it lists the supported chipsets. A more correct and less confusing listing would state HD3200 integrated graphics (and higher), as the prior listing makes it sound like even the HD3000 IGP found in a 760G chipset is up the for job of hardware acceleration of flash video, while only the truly geeky consumer knows better.