archive-com.com » COM » C » CRAFTYMIND.COM

Total: 161

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Blowing up HTML5 video and mapping it into 3D space | Craftymind
    at 8 15 am Works excellently in Opera 10 5 I can t tell any noticeable difference between how fast Opera handles either compared to Safari on my computer Opera certainly blows the pieces apart faster but that could be just because there are less of them Unsure why the video is smaller in Opera and Firefox though John Poole says April 21 2010 at 9 50 am Failed in Windows XP Pro SP3 Firefox 3 6 3 Mozilla 5 0 Windows U Windows NT 5 1 en US rv 1 9 2 3 Gecko 20100401 Firefox 3 6 3 GTB6 NET CLR 3 5 30729 Are there certain plug ins required Brad Neuberg says April 21 2010 at 11 20 am This is hot Juriy says April 21 2010 at 11 34 am 3D video is awesome Sean Christmann says April 21 2010 at 11 41 am Alright Firefox and Opera users the ogg video is now 640 x 360 enjoy Darryl says April 21 2010 at 11 50 am very cool demo Michael says April 21 2010 at 12 33 pm Awesome Ok so I tried to replicate on my server so I could start playing with your math and start ripping it apart to try and understand it but I cannot get the ogv to play I dl ed it from you and uploaded do I need to re encode Mark says April 21 2010 at 12 50 pm 3D implementation of video web in Second Life was just introduced Others may be interested so I thought I would share this demo with more info http www youtube com watch v Mpuop3ub2hs Edgeman says April 21 2010 at 12 56 pm This ran super no slowdowns at all on Firefox 3 6 3 on Win7 32bit Ran like crap in my Chrome same OS computer Sean Christmann says April 21 2010 at 1 18 pm michael I m not sure why it s wouldn t work for you you shouldn t have to re encode to play it elsewhere Paul says April 21 2010 at 1 37 pm Excellent example of html5 manipulation don t worry to much about speed at the moment when FF uses direct2D to draw to screen you will see a vast improvement re iPad iPhone they seemed to have crippled html audio and video in safari for these it only works if the src is streamed I guess they don t want anyone making there own iTunes in html Martin says April 21 2010 at 2 00 pm I tried this on both Firefox 3 6 and the latest install of chrome I found that Chrome handled the spinning and shattering of the video better but Firefox did the actually playing of the video much more smoothly Also the video looping failed on Chrome so it would play through once then instead of restarting it would only stop on the first frame I was surprised because even without reading that the author expected poor performance on Firefox I thought Chrome would be better for html5 it seems that this is not universally true I m running winxp SP3 with a 3 2 Ghz P4 and 2GB of ram CORRECTION After revisiting the page in Chrome I found it was only choppy because unlike Firefox it did not wait when the network fell behind it would stall then skip whenever the network caught up It still does not loop properly infocyde says April 21 2010 at 2 03 pm Awesome I know this is just a demo but my mind is already racing with possibilities Great post Matthew says April 21 2010 at 2 05 pm Colour me impressed Flix says April 21 2010 at 6 28 pm Is this optimized at all or just a proof of concept Because it eats 70 of one core and 20 total CPU on my 2 4 GHz Machine AdrianT says April 21 2010 at 11 29 pm Works well for me on Ubuntu 9 1 and Windows 7 in firefox andrew says April 22 2010 at 12 11 am The slow performance copying out of the video tag is likely because the video is in the YUV color space copying it to a Canvas will require converting it to the RGB color space Every pixel needs to be converted individually which is of course murder on the CPU It can be sped up but will require SSE Neon Altivec etc optimisations but only if the blocks being copied are big enough I m betting most browsers don t have those anyway Rendering directly to a canvas means you get a bulk transfer bonus by doing the conversion all at once rather than piecemeal same optimisation requirement applies though getPixel setPixel are generally a bad idea for the same reason that accessing random cells out of order in an array is a bad idea modern CPUs are designed to operate in bulk modes do large chunks of repetitious work on a slab of memory Peeling individual pixels apart rather than grinding the lot as a whole will be massively slower There may also be GPU bus overhead with pixels flying back and forth between the video card memory and the CPU which is extra super slow BTW I just had a horrible idea of an SVG JavaScript with embedded HTML5 video tags as some sort of movie palette that zooms in and out on each individual clip when clicked with grey out and enabling sound on the selected only I suspect you could probably lock the entire browser UI with something like that esses designs says April 22 2010 at 1 00 am brilliant in Safari on an 07 BlackBook Adobe should stop being afraid of Flash dying and focus on making HTML5 tools Leif Arne Storset says April 22 2010 at 3 17 am andrew Great explanation thanks Michael says April 22 2010 at 9 51 am So weird when I put the video on

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/blowing-up-html5-video-and-mapping-it-into-3d-space/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • HTML5 Video 3D
    in webkit based browsers Return to Craftymind Article Due to popular request the ogg video is now 640 x 360 don t hold me responsible for crashing your browser You may need to reload the page if video isn t

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVideo3D.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Silverlight | Craftymind
    Flex 3 46 08 Download Flash 9 Java Java 5 Swing 19 37 Download Java 6 Swing Processing JavaFX Silverlight Silverlight 1 Javascript 9 12 Download Silverlight 2 Beta C 7 95 Download Results for OS X 10 5 running on Macbook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2 33 GHz Tech Base Version Average FPS Source Browser HTML 18 20 Safari 3 Download SVG Canvas Flash Flex 3 8 01 Download Flash 9 Java Java 5 Swing 7 19 Download Java 6 Swing Processing JavaFX Silverlight Silverlight 1 Javascript 5 25 Download Silverlight 2 Beta C 5 38 Download Findings I ve been surprised with the results so far between WinXP and OS X On the same machine its very clear which vendors take more advantage of the underlying hardware The results for the different plugin technologies aren t too surprising since it s regularly admitted that most companies spend their optimization time on Windows due to its larger install base This argument doesn t hold any water though when comparing html rendering on Safari Mac against IE Windows where there s roughly a 1 6 1 advantage to the IE team I can t help but wonder if the core apis on the Mac platform are creating any unnecessary roadblocks I m also extremely surprised at the rendering speed that Flash is able to pull off on Windows I developed this benchmark under OS X and after compiling the results I m considered making the testcase more intensive since Flash is running so fast but for now maybe the really poor Mac performance will give Adobe something to work on You can read more about rendering engine theory the structure of the test case itself and detailed analysis of the results on the sub pages within the site Updates John Dowdell from Adobe brought up a valid point that plugin vendors are restricted by the browser environments they run in This is true to an extent but the limitations enforced on plugins don t come into play with the GUIMark test Browsers typically restrict the number of event loops available to a plugin which caps the framerate to around 40 50 fps GUIMark doesn t come anywhere close to hitting that limit on Mac There are also no restrictions to the amount of cpu available to a plugin running within the browser which is why all of them peg the cpu to 100 To illustrate the point I created an AIR implementation of GUIMark and ran it on my Powerbook and here are the results I got The Flash players rendering engine performs no differently outside the browser then it does inside the browser Until plugins start bumping up against the event loop or Beam Sync restrictions Adobe Sun and Microsoft don t get a free pass for slow performance on Mac AIR Flash Html Silverlight Why Bubblemark is a poor ui benchmark April 11 2008 Sean Christmann 9 Comments A few months ago someone on the Adobe boards

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/category/silverlight/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Introducing GUIMark – An RIA benchmark for Flex, Silverlight, HTML and more | Craftymind
    others As a result the benchmark is more complicated on a visual level and requires a bit more time then Bubblemark to understand the implementation rules Lastly with GUIMark I ve tried to get into some of the lower level details behind how rendering engines work and how that s affected the creation of this project I m hoping that developers and designers will be able to use this test suite to identify any pros or cons to choosing a particular environment when visual transitions are a key element of the experience I m also hoping these benchmarks provide a spotlight for the community that we can turn toward the runtime engineers inside Sun or Adobe or Mozilla to demand better performance Go to GUIMark home page Post navigation Previous Post GUIMark Benchmark and Rendering Engine theory Next Post Web app to extract torrent files out of Blizzard Downloader 10 thoughts on Introducing GUIMark An RIA benchmark for Flex Silverlight HTML and more Craig Overend says May 23 2008 at 12 42 am Ubuntu Linux 8 04 P4 2 8C 3 44 Radeon9600SE 1280 1024 FF3b5 5 46 Flash in FF3b5 9 04 Java in FF3b5 8 96 Moonlight 0 6 Silverlight 1 0 Failed to detect moonlight FF3 issue I believe Moonlight 0 6 Silverlight 2 0 beta Failed with a blank screen Moonlight loaded Midori Webkit 19 Opera9 27 19 Konqueror 7 5 Flash plugin failed to load to show exact results The above machine with Virtualbox running Windows XP 1024 768 FF2 8 4 Flash in FF2 11 75 Java in FF2 9 15 Get this after upgrading FF2 on the Virtualboxed XP to FF3RC1 FF3RC1 3 69 Flash in FF3RC1 14 84 Java in FF3RC1 10 27 I was watching my CPU for usage through all this and repeated tests Midori was by far the smoothest on the eye while Opera the worst 3 0GHz 3 4GHz manual clocking of the CPU had no noticeable impact upon results Official ATI Drivers for Linux were slightly slower than the open source Radeon drivers Sean Christmann says May 23 2008 at 1 19 am Thanks for the results Craig when you say you were watching your CPU usage did you find it was pegged at 100 kl says May 23 2008 at 3 46 am HTML on 1 7Ghz PowerMac â Opera 9 5b2 9 5fps â Opera 9 2 8fps â WebKit Nightly 8fps â Firefox 3 Nightly 3 5fps â Firefox 2 5 5fps suprisingly Craig Overend says May 24 2008 at 12 10 am Sean most of the tests we re 50 75 CPU bound and I was mainly watching for background process spikes Had to close a few initially before I ran the tests What I found interesting was my hyperthreading CPU and FF3b5 didn t use the threads as evenly as did Flash or the best Java which was dead even for both threads When FF3b5 hit near 90 with the first thread

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/introducing-guimark-an-ria-benchmark-for-flex-silverlight-html-and-more/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • AIR | Craftymind
    few months ago someone on the Adobe boards asked why the Flex testcase in Bubblemark seemed to act so different in AIR versus in the browser Yesterday I saw the same question come up again and I figured I d finally weigh in on the topic The simple answer is that the test was created improperly the complex answer has to do with the inherent limitations of the test itself First off for those who don t know what the Bubblemark test is its a simple animation test case implemented in different GUI frameworks its kinda like an Acid2 test for rendering speed The charts should ideally give you a base number to understand how well one technology compares against another for rendering As a GUI developer I ve been a bit underwhelmed with the whole thing and heres why The author doesn t understand Flash s rendering engine The easiest way to illustrate how incorrectly the Flash test was designed is to download the source and change the compiled framerate to 1 fps Re compile and run the test and you ll notice the benchmark framerate running at 50 fps You can clearly see the balls only moving once per second yet the test thinks its flying along This is because the testcase makes the incorrect assumptions that changing the properties of a DisplayObject causes it to render right away The reality is Flash holds on to all display updates till the next render pass and applies all the latest changes at once Changing the position of an object every 5 milliseconds is meaningless when Flash is bound by a 33 millisecond render pass or whatever you re framerate divided by 1000 happens to be A correct test case would rely on an ENTER FRAME handler to change x and y values and get rid of any Timer calls Framerate tests above 60 fps are meaningless Seriously any GUI benchmark designed to test above 60 fps is bogus In fact a pretty simple optimization technique for Adobe or Sun would be to cap the paint requests that get forwarded to OS X or Windows simply because the majority of computer users these days are on LCD panels which natively run at 60 fps Some operating systems even go a step further and limit the effective framerate of paint requests it sends to the videocard see Beam Sync on Mac So when you see the Java test case fly up to 120 fps on Bubblemark you can realistically only see 60 of those frames and there might be a chance the other 60 are never even calculated by Javas layout engine The test just moves balls around This is my biggest beef with the benchmark because it only tests one simple aspect of the rendering engine in these technologies which is bitmap translation How do bitmaps moving around the screen tell you anything about the capabilities of the respective technologies Do the JavaFX guys really think optimizing this usecase will

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/category/air/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Why Bubblemark is a poor ui benchmark | Craftymind
    case fly up to 120 fps on Bubblemark you can realistically only see 60 of those frames and there might be a chance the other 60 are never even calculated by Javas layout engine The test just moves balls around This is my biggest beef with the benchmark because it only tests one simple aspect of the rendering engine in these technologies which is bitmap translation How do bitmaps moving around the screen tell you anything about the capabilities of the respective technologies Do the JavaFX guys really think optimizing this usecase will make their technology relevant The only thing Bubblemark will tell you is which runtimes might best handle bitmap particle emitters thats about it Theres a lot more that goes into both the layout engine and the rendering pipeline of these different technologies and its a shame that only the most basic aspect is being tested The funny thing is if you open up your task manager while running the tests you ll notice that several of them don t even try to run at full speed my CPU is sitting as low as 20 in some cases This means the runtimes don t even consider the test difficult enough to give it full attention and have opted for using less power over faster motion I don t mean to cut down the developers responsible for Bubblemark because at least they came up with a simple way to help us all compare these different technologies I just think its a bit misguided to put any meaning behind these numbers When evaluating your options for a GUI framework in our flashy web 2 0 world you need to consider how well a technology can handle object scaling alpha transparencies rotations text reflow along with basic x and y translation and dynamic redraws Even more realistically developers need to be aware of the limits in the 25 45 framerate region since this is where you can efficiently balance render complexity with smooth animation I ve uploaded a couple quick test cases in Flash HTML and Silverlight that I think provide a good foundation for stressing a rendering engine and hopefully I ll get a chance to expand them more into a full test suite Post navigation Previous Post Kick starting the garbage collector in Actionscript 3 with AIR Next Post Updated Elastic Racetrack for Flash 9 and AVM2 9 thoughts on Why Bubblemark is a poor ui benchmark Chet Haase says April 11 2008 at 2 10 pm Sean Good points similar to the beefs that James Ward and I had with the test Note however in your first point that just changing the timing mechanism to use an ENTER FRAME handler instead of Timer won t fix the timing resolution issue I mentioned in my blog post they re both capped in the browser to a much lower rate than they could handle basically the refresh rate of the monitor So updaing the values in ENTER FRAME might be

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/why-bubblemark-is-a-poor-ui-benchmark/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Java | Craftymind
    listed below and I fully welcome any optimizations or ports that readers want to contribute I m really curious to see if any community experts or platform engineers are able to speed up their technology of choice Although the code is fairly simple at a glance there are no easy optimization paths to be found and no cheating by turning off anti aliasing Results Results for Win XP running on Macbook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2 33 GHz Tech Base Version Average FPS Source Browser HTML 28 36 IE 7 Download SVG Canvas Flash Flex 3 46 08 Download Flash 9 Java Java 5 Swing 19 37 Download Java 6 Swing Processing JavaFX Silverlight Silverlight 1 Javascript 9 12 Download Silverlight 2 Beta C 7 95 Download Results for OS X 10 5 running on Macbook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2 33 GHz Tech Base Version Average FPS Source Browser HTML 18 20 Safari 3 Download SVG Canvas Flash Flex 3 8 01 Download Flash 9 Java Java 5 Swing 7 19 Download Java 6 Swing Processing JavaFX Silverlight Silverlight 1 Javascript 5 25 Download Silverlight 2 Beta C 5 38 Download Findings I ve been surprised with the results so far between WinXP and OS X On the same machine its very clear which vendors take more advantage of the underlying hardware The results for the different plugin technologies aren t too surprising since it s regularly admitted that most companies spend their optimization time on Windows due to its larger install base This argument doesn t hold any water though when comparing html rendering on Safari Mac against IE Windows where there s roughly a 1 6 1 advantage to the IE team I can t help but wonder if the core apis on the Mac

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/category/java/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • GUIMark | Craftymind
    this ahum synch mechanism So drumroll without the text this is the chart I got 64 01 Link Obviously re adding the text still makes it slow as hell Sean Christmann says May 22 2008 at 3 47 pm Interesting I had read that MS was discouraging the use of the Storyboard object for managing timer loops post 1 0 The textblock is a significant portion of the benchmark since most all RIAs contain text and it really stresses the layout engine It also plays an important equalizer in balancing out the things HTML is good at with the things the plugins are good at Although ultimately Flash just chews through both text and graphics with ease John Dowdell says May 22 2008 at 3 57 pm Iâ ve been surprised with the results so far between WinXP and OS X Try it outside of a browser in a Projector or in AIR The Mac browsers have been a little dictatorial in the timeslices they ll allot to plugins It s been an issue for a few years but not a well known one Chet Haase did a new analysis last month http graphics geek blogspot com 2008 04 times up html jd adobe Alexandre Grenier says May 22 2008 at 4 05 pm Indeed I am shocked by the performance of text rendering in Silverlight 2 Beta 1 especially knowing that MS has been coding very fast text renderers since the early days of Windows I would rather use some sort of dispatcher timer than the ugly storyboard code above but it doesn t seem like it plays well with the renderer yet In short Microsoft has some work to do but obviously they know this hence the Beta 1 already quite a few months old so I imagine it has evolved quite a lot It will be interesting to try this again on Silverlight 2 final and compare the results Sean Christmann says May 22 2008 at 4 30 pm John this first round was designed for browser based UI technologies and when I start moving my test to AIR you guys will be up against WPF and Cocoa and I imagine that battle is going to be just as interesting I think its important that Adobe Sun and Microsoft use their weight to make both Mac and Win browsers into better platforms for plugins since it appears to be out of the control of the common developer At the end of the day if developers find they ll get better performance out of HTML derived RIAs over plugin based ones excuses or not they might start moving that direction John Dowdell says May 22 2008 at 5 00 pm Thanks Sean but the point was that the Mac browsers themselves have been the cause of Mac Win performance differences in the past as shown by running outside the browser on the desktop Make sure to test them Cocoa apps on Windows too I m not sure how much influence we can exert on Apple or Mozilla and for Microsoft we had to endure the whole Eolas thing But competitive pressures will provide an equalizer if Mac users see that AIR outperforms in browser apps jd Mitch says May 23 2008 at 11 18 am Oddly I found very different results when I did a recent 3D transition test for SlideRocket in Flex On the Mac performance was better than on my PC Here are links for the tests one using Papervision in Flash Player 9 and the other using native 3D in Flash Player 10 The FP10 performs best in full screen mode http www sliderocket com test fp9test html http www sliderocket com test fp10test html mitch sliderocket Matthew Fabb says May 23 2008 at 11 38 am Thanks Sean for setting up this benchmarking project Could you provide what browser you used with the various plugin tests since it s possible that the browser is effecting the performance of the plugin Thanks Also for those who are interested here s more information on framerates for the Flash player on different operating systems and different browsers right from an Adobe engineer Tinic Uro http www kaourantin net 2006 05 frame rates in flash player html Sean Christmann says May 23 2008 at 1 28 pm Mitch how do you feel about the performance of the core Slide Rocket app aside from the 3d transitions Your app is a great example of the visual complexity that is slowly becoming the norm in RIAs and is a primary example of why GUIMark stresses so many different visual features When I ran your demos I had a chance to put them side by side to actually watch them I noticed that the framerate was higher on Mac when idle but they d both drop to about the same level when running the transition Visually they both had the same relative amount of stutter in the transitional period One thing about Windows though is there was alot of image tearing occurring whereas Mac had better image quality Matthew I just realized that I didn t post which browsers won on the home page I only mention it in the detailed analysis so I added that into the page above I tested on IE 7 and Safari 3 for the respective OSes Both you and John posted about the same issue and I know I m going to see this alot What Tinic is refering to is a maximum possible framerate allowed by both the browser and the OS Since GUIMark comes nowhere near those caps the only thing being stressed is the quality of the renderer itself Once Mac is pushing 30 fps or higher then it will start becoming applicable John Jones says May 23 2008 at 4 58 pm Thanks for providing such a effective benchmark it really shows what vendors are up to and metrics help them speed these things up well done regards John Jones http www johnjones me uk Krzysiek85 says May 24 2008 at 7 35 am My results on C2D 6600 2 4 GHz only 3 faster than yours FF3b5 and Ubuntu 8 04 HTML 21 Flash 52 Java 18 Daniel Wijk says May 24 2008 at 9 31 am I have tried the HTML test on my Mac Pro on these browsers under Mac OS X Safari 3 1 Webkit nightly Firefox 3 RC1 and on these browser under Windows XP SP3 Safari 3 1 Firefox 3 RC1 Internet Explorer 7 The difference in FPS between the results on my machine is between 1 3 I would like to point out that I just reinstalled Windows XP so its not bloated with anything that slowes it down Ryan O Connell says May 26 2008 at 3 22 am Wow this crawls on Firefox 3 RC1 5 6 FPS Flash Flex 26 FPS Tested on a XP SP3 Athlon 3500 Stephen Bradley says May 27 2008 at 4 35 am It s great that you ve put this together I m very impressed that you could develop this in so many different languages I m not convinced that the reflowing of text on each frame makes for a very real world test I don t think any text rendering system is going to be optimised for reflowing text that often and I can t think of a design that would use that capability I think that bitmap resizing and transforming as in Mitch s test should be included in the benchmark as this is fairly widely used in RIAs think of all those coverflow and flipbook clones There should also be some form of alpha channel animation element I have found it is in these areas that you need to reach the framerate for the animation to be effective on the chosen platform and if the framerate is not high enough then the effect is lost and users get annoyed with your unresponsive interface Scott E King says May 27 2008 at 10 29 am Just curious did you optimize Mac OS X for performance Since Mac OS X for portables uses settings that optimizes various aspects of the user experience such as Better Performance Better Battery Life or a cross between the two which setting did you use when you performed these tests Mac portables tend to emphasize battery life over performance so you should probably optimize the OS as much as possible for performance if that s what you care about I imagine that XP already runs the CPU much hotter than Mac OS X to maximize performance though equivalent settings on the XP side should be optimized for performance as well Ultimately what you may have inadvertently discovered is not that Mac OS X makes inefficient use of the hardware but rather makes highly efficient use of the hardware to optimize user experience and not necessarily raw performance Mitch says May 27 2008 at 10 58 am So SlideRocket has both an editor for creating presentations and a player for playing them back We ve seen very few performance issues with the editor The GUI is very responsive and is pretty comparable with a desktop app Thumbnail generation is probably the worst performing aspect since we can t do it server side and there is no threading in the client Older builds of SlideRocket definitely attempted to have more GUI eye candy sliding drawers etc but it quickly became clear that that stuff was difficult to maintain good performance with I m reasonably happy with baseline playback performance but I think our biggest challenge is that SlideRocket is flexible enough that a user can bring it to it s knees quite easily Drop a snow particle plugin on top of an HD movie and then put a drop shadow effect on it and you are hosed If anyone would like a beta account for SlideRocket please feel free to email me at mitch sliderocket com Sean Christmann says May 27 2008 at 11 29 am Stephen Thanks I think its a valid argument that the benchmark goes a bit overboard on text reflow but since almost all websites are mostly text driven I wanted this test to be valid for simple transitions like Digg and Slashdots commenting system all the way up to more complicated visual system The test stresses a good amount of matrix transforms as well as vector transforms but theres no way I d be able to rewrite Papervision in each different language That kind of test is really going to have to remain a Flash thing only Scott I ran the tests with my power cord plugged in and my laptop set to Better Performance for the power cord setting One thing to also point out is that I kept both my Activity Monitor and Task Manager open during testing to ensure that my cpu was pegged to 100 This was a pretty important aspect of the test for me since I didn t want to build something that wasn t correctly thrashing the cpu darby says May 27 2008 at 11 46 am Maybe comparing like for like may have been slightly more fair You re comparing Leopard with an OS that s been around since 2001 why didn t you compare Apple s latest OS Leopard with Microsoft s latest OS Vista Or if you want to compare Microsoft s most updated and speed optimised OS XP then compare it against the same from Apple i e Tiger which has had 11 updates since its release Leopard is an OS that s only had a couple of updates and also has a lot more eye candy than Tiger and is far from speed optimised Sean Christmann says May 27 2008 at 1 12 pm Darby its just a matter of what I have installed on my machine As for Tiger I just got one of my coworkers to run the HTML test in Safari on his Tiger install He saw a slightly lower framerate then I got in Leopard at 17 19 fps Here are the raw results Personally I think XP results are more relevant right now since it owns such a large market share compared to vista Dmitri Trembovetski says May 27 2008 at 4 29 pm For the java benchmark could you please run it on 6u10 beta builds available from http jdk6 dev java net This benchmark will benefit from the new Java2D pipeline which was added in that release assuming you have a decent video board I get pretty much the same scores as Flex on my system with 6u10 installed Thanks Dmitri Java2D Team Tilo says May 27 2008 at 9 14 pm I just ran this on my iMac under both Mac OS X 10 5 2 and VMWare Fusion with Windows XP SP3 VMWare Fusion w WinXP comes close to the published numbers for Windows XP both in windowed and fullscreen mode My OSX reaches the same sad numbers as published It s a shame that emulated Windows apps get more performance than apps running directly on the host system Supposedly Apple has told users of the latest dev seeds for OS X 10 5 3 to report back on Flash performance in Safari and the Mac native software Delicious Library 2 mentions drastic rendering speed improvements that will be available with OS X 10 5 3 so there is hope Dave Hyatt says May 28 2008 at 2 39 pm The difference between IE7 and Safari basically just boils down to image scaling Safari as much higher quality image scaling than IE7 does so our rendering of the scaled image is superior However this higher quality scaling comes at the expense of speed On my machine if I switch WebKit to use lower quality scaling we jump from 21fps to 35fps So basically that explains the difference You might consider forcing IE to use higher quality image scaling http msdn microsoft com en us library ms530822 VS 85 aspx I m going to look into making WebKit dynamically switch to lower quality scaling if an image changes size repeatedly and quickly going back to high quality mode when the animation stops That should ideally provide the best of both worlds high quality scaling for static scaled images and fast low quality scaling when an animation scale is happening Sean Christmann says May 28 2008 at 6 12 pm Thanks for the info Dave I m surprised those 4 stars are causing that much trouble since all the other images on the page are being clipped and repositioned vs scaled I imagine Safari is limited by Beam Sync so 35 fps is going to be the max you can hit Dave Hyatt says May 28 2008 at 8 04 pm I have some other optimizations that push the result close to 40fps on my Mac Pro up from 21fps when I first started hacking It s worth noting that if you dropped the cross browser code you could cut out a significant of elements for a more optimized rendering for example border image on a single div instead of a bunch of table rows and cells Kamil says May 29 2008 at 12 42 am Grattz for the test Why not Vista vs OS X 10 5 MS dont sell XP now only Vista left Dave Hyatt says May 29 2008 at 1 12 pm Up to to 43fps on my machine Patches should be landing soon and then you will be able to try out a WebKit nightly and see for yourself Chris Brind says May 30 2008 at 3 34 pm Hi I think this is a great post and the findings are very interesting I was wondering if your tests could handle CURL as well http www curl com It would kill two birds with one stone for me the XP vs Mac thing as well as being able to see how CURL compares to Flash and Java in a rendering situation their current tests have been based on JPEG encoding which doesn t really seem relevant More info http developers curl com blogs community blog 2008 05 12 comparing the performance of curl and flex 3 Thanks in advance Cheers Chris Dave Hyatt says May 30 2008 at 4 14 pm My changes have landed if you are interested in trying out a nightly build http nightly webkit org Peter says June 10 2008 at 5 13 pm Hmm The HTML test on Windows 2003 is almost twice as fast in IE7 than FF3 RC2 wasn t expecting this Shane Guillet says June 11 2008 at 4 17 pm Microsoft Silverlight Performance This benchmark was very interesting to investigate as mentioned earlier our text rendering was a major bottleneck with this scenario We ve made several optimizations to text performance as a result caching glyph paths better detection of what s outside the clipping bounds These features will be integrated when we release the final version of Silverlight 2 and show substantial improvement with this scenario Additionally our timers have been improved and now fire reliably You will be able to use either the DispatcherTimer or StoryBoardTimer and see the same results Sean Christmann says June 15 2008 at 11 41 am Shane good to hear I ve been getting such good feedback from all you major vendors that I imagine I ll have to make a new test in the future to start breaking all your optimizations again I look forward to testing the final plugin Tinic Uro says June 18 2008 at 7 04 pm Sean We have identified the bottleneck in the Flash Player for OSX Like in the other plugins the culprit is text rendering in this case rendering using device text This benchmark spends 50 in a single OSX function ATSUGetUnjustifiedBounds You can verify this yourself using Shark I am working on a change which will cache

    Original URL path: http://www.craftymind.com/guimark/ (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive



  •