Tested: How Flash destroys your browser's performance

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ronjor, Aug 12, 2015.

  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2960...flash-destroys-your-browsers-performance.html
     
  2. TomAZ

    TomAZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    USA
    Is there a good reliable alternative to Adobe Flash (Win XP)?
     
  3. Keatah

    Keatah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Posts:
    853
    There is no information that says WHY Flash causes slowdowns, only that it does.
     
  4. SirDrexl

    SirDrexl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Posts:
    545
    Location:
    USA
    Isn't it obviously because it's playing content? Of course that's going to use CPU cycles and more RAM.

    I don't think he was suggesting that simply having Flash installed is going to slow down the browser when there is no Flash content on the pages.
     
  5. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,633
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Flash has always been, well, flashy! by nature. On every Windows O/S since 98 you wait and you wait to see if they can fine tune it to perform without gumming down CPU Cycles and since I worked with a ton of flash files over the years I have to say there is some truth to it's weight problem but in addition the maddening nature of rookie website owners (yes corporates mainstream) (like News Sites) gum up their entire layout with flash like laying a ton of bricks on them IMO.

    Thanks Lone Ranger for the article for whatever it's worth to some.
     
  6. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    416
    Location:
    Belgium
    At least under Firefox, html5 is even worse, especially regarding memory wasting.
     
  7. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes I agree. I have to say that it also differs per site, on YouTube CPU usage is not really high, but on others it's unacceptable. I also hate the Flash Container used by Firefox, it's retarded.
     
  8. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    BTW, what is the CPU usage that you guys get on this site?

    http://www.airpano.ru/files/Amsterdam-Netherlands/2-2
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2015
  9. PallMall

    PallMall Guest

    I've just tested the page with Process Lasso reporting CPU rate on an average of around 28% with min=13 and max=44 on perhaps a 60 seconds period.
    Note : HTML5 here, I kicked out Flash 2 weeks ago.

    EDIT : I returned to the page to view it rather than its CPU hungriness : lovely, technically well done with the expression of Dutch artistic skills included (Arts takes a great place in Dutch culture, not only coffee shops!) -- Beautiful A'dam -- Thanks for the link, favored.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2015
  10. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I didn't even know that it also worked with HTML5. So apparently HTML5 is just as "heavy". But anyway, I'm getting different readings, Process Explorer says 45%, while System Explorer says 30%, there's something seriously wrong with CPU time measurement on multicore CPU's.
     
  11. PallMall

    PallMall Guest

    Those indications are punctual when the rates follow the stream. You need an average. 45% may have been a peek and 30% an intermediary value... I guess it must be somewhat the same with Flash and HTML5, around 28-30% -- In fact I never really noticed any difference in CPU requisition between the two.
     
  12. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Well, this is something that has always bothered me, CPU measuring tools all seem to give different readings on multicore CPU's, trust me I have tested this with quite a few tools.

    I'm not a big fan of my hometown Amsterdam, other cities look a lot better. But yes, it doesn't look too bad when seen from the sky.
     
  13. PallMall

    PallMall Guest

    The tools didn't measure the CPU at the same time, that's all.
    It's seldom that anyone is a fan of his hometown! I visited the place, spent two years living there, almost got married there as well... life (me included) decided differently and back I went to ... my hometown!
     
  14. pegas

    pegas Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Posts:
    2,016
    Using Opera 31 and cannot confirm the editor's findings.
     
  15. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No you misunderstood, both Process Explorer and System Explorer give different readings, even when the system is idle, you can test it for yourself. Same goes for the Win Task Manager, so who to trust? I have no idea.

    I do like living here, but it's simply not as good looking, as other cities like Barcelona, Stockholm and New York for example. I think it's mostly about architecture.
     
  16. PallMall

    PallMall Guest

    Strange. I've ran again the Amsterdam page with both Sysinternal's Process Explorer and Windows' Task Manager side by side and results were in the same ranges at a same given time, even if Process Explorer has a "2 digit after comma" precision (don't know how to say that in English) and scans I believe with a shorter cycle (maybe every 0.5second as opposed to maybe every 1.00second for Task Manager. They retrieve the cpu rate from the same source as I understand it (PerfProc and PerfOS counters) but display the values with slightly different intervals ... I'm no specialist so if any are around : please correct me if applicable ...
    Anyway, we're not going to create a buzz on this, are we? :confused:
     
  17. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    When I rotate an image, CPU jumps to between 40 - 65+ for a couple of seconds, then back to between 0 - 4.

    ----
    rich
     
  18. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,779
    Location:
    Texas
  19. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I'm getting between 30 and 45%, I guess it also depends on the CPU.

    Interesting article. I do hope that HTML5 video will be improved a lot, it's the only way to kill Flash. Here's an article about the death of the horrible Silverlight:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/02/microsoft_silverlight/
     
  20. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
    Not to my experience... not even close. I find it more responsive, convenient, light, and secure than Flash on XP Pro SP3.
     
  21. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    firefox is running on my linux computer extremely well with no issues,but i am currently using v11.2 of the adobe flash with no updates in the forseeable future ,the only reason i still have flash installed is for flash games,.
     
Loading...