Flash Performance

darknebula · 2008-06-28 05:46:40

In all the test I've done, with Flash 9 and 10, it just seems that Flash videos just can't keep up as they can in Windows. Do you think it's a driver or flash problem? It's extremely discouraging, and making me think to give up Linux for Windows because of many example of poor drivers and support for Linux from big business

allbluedream · 2008-06-28 15:13:03

I've learnt to give up very much on flash than the other way around...But your point is valid about the poor performance of flash in Linux. The most recent build of firefox3-systemcairo combined with the new Nvidia beta driver seems to give me better results though.

.:B:. · 2008-06-28 19:11:30

I cannot honestly believe flash is a key feature (unless you develop in it and stuff), but the problem is not with Linux afaik. It's with Adobe .

iBertus · 2008-06-28 19:39:47

My Flash 10 runs about 10% CPU while watching YouTube videos in FF3 with nspluginwrapper. So, that's with the overhead of running the 32-bit plugin on 64-bit linux. The same movies use between 5-6% CPU on my Windows box, so the issue seems to be getting better. The FOSS alternatives typically max one core while playing a movie, so 25% total CPU usage, but feel somewhat slower overall. Also, the Adobe plugin is more stable in FF3 for me than swfdec or gnash.

darknebula · 2008-06-28 20:14:34

Yeah. I'm feeling better about it. It's not really a key feature as you said but it just really gets me down about ATI, Adobe and Nvidia not helping us out here. Linux just provides me with so much more than Windows so it's really a no brainier. Maybe I can contribute to the open source version of ATI eh? lol

KurtKraut · 2008-06-29 09:44:50

On my Eee PC watching a simple YouTube video makes my load average hit the 1.0. Sometimes I get a sluggish performance. The 'heaviest' thing I ever done in my Eee PC wasn't using OpenOffice, it was watching videos on YouTube !

Barrucadu · 2008-06-29 10:07:59

Flash is working perfectly for me. I am using Flash 10 Beta, Opera 9.5 (Qt 4 version, if that makes a difference), PulseAudio, and the vesa video driver. Works just as well as in Windows, i was surprised because no other distro has even come close with Flash before, even Flash 9 was great in Arch
I'm loading a video in BBC iPlayer now, and Flash is alternating between roughly 20% and 35% CPU usage.

Last edited by Barrucadu (2008-06-29 10:09:28)

sam · 2008-06-29 16:48:06

Flash performance is dependent on the flash player and the video driver your computer uses. Flash player is generally slower in linux than in windows. This is probably due to adobe's priorities. Heck, for a long time linux only had flash 7 while windows had flash 9 and many sites used flash 8. It was a grim time in linux history... Having said that, the performance difference between windows and Linux versions should still allow for relatively smooth video animations, if it wasn't for the drivers.

I'm not sure if this is because flash now tries to use your video card to speed up rendering or it is because of bad video card drivers, but the drivers have an IMMENSE impact on video. I have an ati card, and ati has been undergoing a change of philosophy toward linux and this is impacting their drivers. This usually bring about good change, like AIGLX; however, it introduces many bugs that affect video performance. The current ati driver is 8.6, however I'm still using 8.4 because 8.5 and 8.6 make youtube videos UNWATCHABLE on my dual core. The 8.4 driver is slightly sluggish, but at least I can watch flash videos.

The performance of flash videos is indicative of the general performance of flash on the platform. If you dual boot and want to see this difference, you can try a simple video like youtube.com. Most likely this will work equally well in both OSs, where you will 'likely' find a difference is HD videos on dailymotion (unless you have a powerful video card).

The good news about all of this is that the future of flash looks very promising. Adobe finally treats linux with the same respect as windows, and is apparent by the simultaneous release of flash 10. Ati is breaking milestones with their video drivers, and the open source ati driver will eventually surpass the stability and performance of propriety drivers.

Frem · 2008-07-03 01:52:20

While flash on Linux is getting a lot better, the plugin still has a tendancy to lock up Firefox and Opera for me.

amdarch64 · 2008-07-03 02:44:23

sam wrote:

Flash performance is dependent on the flash player and the video driver your computer uses. Flash player is generally slower in linux than in windows. This is probably due to adobe's priorities. Heck, for a long time linux only had flash 7 while windows had flash 9 and many sites used flash 8. It was a grim time in linux history... Having said that, the performance difference between windows and Linux versions should still allow for relatively smooth video animations, if it wasn't for the drivers.
I'm not sure if this is because flash now tries to use your video card to speed up rendering or it is because of bad video card drivers, but the drivers have an IMMENSE impact on video. I have an ati card, and ati has been undergoing a change of philosophy toward linux and this is impacting their drivers. This usually bring about good change, like AIGLX; however, it introduces many bugs that affect video performance. The current ati driver is 8.6, however I'm still using 8.4 because 8.5 and 8.6 make youtube videos UNWATCHABLE on my dual core. The 8.4 driver is slightly sluggish, but at least I can watch flash videos.
The performance of flash videos is indicative of the general performance of flash on the platform. If you dual boot and want to see this difference, you can try a simple video like youtube.com. Most likely this will work equally well in both OSs, where you will 'likely' find a difference is HD videos on dailymotion (unless you have a powerful video card).
The good news about all of this is that the future of flash looks very promising. Adobe finally treats linux with the same respect as windows, and is apparent by the simultaneous release of flash 10. Ati is breaking milestones with their video drivers, and the open source ati driver will eventually surpass the stability and performance of propriety drivers.

keep believing it then

iBertus · 2008-07-03 03:27:21

sam wrote:

... and the open source ati driver will eventually surpass the stability and performance of propriety drivers.

Eh, I doubt that will ever happen. Too many proprietary technologies are involved for the features to ever be completely implemented.

carlocci · 2008-07-03 14:30:14

iBertus wrote:

sam wrote:
... and the open source ati driver will eventually surpass the stability and performance of propriety drivers.
Eh, I doubt that will ever happen. Too many proprietary technologies are involved for the features to ever be completely implemented.

they used to say the same about wine

sam · 2008-07-03 23:18:08

I think the last few posters have misunderstood what I wrote, or I should have written the last sentence differently...Either way, when I said that, I didn't mean that if a new video card comes out that the open source version will EVER be better than the proprietary driver for THAT CARD. However, a video card that is starting to collect dust will work better with the open source driver rather than the proprietary drivers.

So in other words, current ati 2xxx, 3xxx, and 4xxxx will work better on the propritary drivers because they are new, and the PAID ati developers will always INITIALLY make better drivers than open-source drivers. However, after a few months or even years, the open source community will release better drivers for those video cards given the specs for the card. This is because after a few months or years, ati developers will start focusing on new drivers for new video cards rather than continue improving older video cards. Open source however, does not move at the same pace as the video card industry, thus older video cards will keep being improved because Linux users still use them. I hope that I'm not wrong, because If I am, then a bunch of PAID devs in Novell are wasting their time...

Last edited by sam (2008-07-03 23:21:41)

amdarch64 · 2008-07-03 23:49:01

sam wrote:

I think the last few posters have misunderstood what I wrote, or I should have written the last sentence differently...Either way, when I said that, I didn't mean that if a new video card comes out that the open source version will EVER be better than the proprietary driver for THAT CARD. However, a video card that is starting to collect dust will work better with the open source driver rather than the proprietary drivers.
So in other words, current ati 2xxx, 3xxx, and 4xxxx will work better on the propritary drivers because they are new, and the PAID ati developers will always INITIALLY make better drivers than open-source drivers. However, after a few months or even years, the open source community will release better drivers for those video cards given the specs for the card. This is because after a few months or years, ati developers will start focusing on new drivers for new video cards rather than continue improving older video cards. Open source however, does not move at the same pace as the video card industry, thus older video cards will keep being improved because Linux users still use them. I hope that I'm not wrong, because If I am, then a bunch of PAID devs in Novell are wasting their time...

maybe, but did you read this person's opinion
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06 … ource.html

sam · 2008-07-04 00:18:10

amdarch64 wrote:

maybe, but did you read this person's opinion
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06 … ource.html

I agree with the basic premise of the article and I agree that nvidia drivers are good (or at least from what I hear, given that I don't have an nvidia card). Ati's case is different though because current drivers are not good, and according to the article, that is because the way ati works with xorg is not as good. Improving the relationship between catalyst driver and xorg would require an overhaul of the entire driver, which isn't happening with ati, but it can with open source drivers.

As an off topic to to this post and my previous rants, I do disagree with the links response to intel drivers, and I agree with some of the comments left on the blog. I have an intel card, an i860something, that works MUCH better with open source linux drivers than windows drivers. The open source drivers are faster for games (oddly enough, even windows games that run through wine) and include more hooks for better opengl support. For example wolfenstein in windows has weird texture problems and lower framerate, whereas wolfenstein for linux is flawless. Not to mention better standby and hibernate support. I'm hoping something like that will happen to ATI brand video cards, but this does not need to happen to nvidia, because nvidia drivers are ALREADY good. This may explain why ati decided to release card specs, and why nvidia refuses...

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-28 05:46:40

Flash Performance

#2 2008-06-28 15:13:03

Re: Flash Performance

#3 2008-06-28 19:11:30

Re: Flash Performance

#4 2008-06-28 19:39:47

Re: Flash Performance

#5 2008-06-28 20:14:34

Re: Flash Performance

#6 2008-06-29 09:44:50

Re: Flash Performance

#7 2008-06-29 10:07:59

Re: Flash Performance

#8 2008-06-29 16:48:06

Re: Flash Performance

#9 2008-07-03 01:52:20

Re: Flash Performance

#10 2008-07-03 02:44:23

Re: Flash Performance

#11 2008-07-03 03:27:21

Re: Flash Performance

#12 2008-07-03 14:30:14

Re: Flash Performance

#13 2008-07-03 23:18:08

Re: Flash Performance

#14 2008-07-03 23:49:01

Re: Flash Performance

#15 2008-07-04 00:18:10

Re: Flash Performance

Board footer