On Aug 7, 12:19 pm, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > I have an AMD Athlon X2 2.0Ghz CPU and nVidia GeForce 7100 GPU. > > Flash while watching a video on Hulu hovers at around 35% CPU usage, and > total system CPU usage hovers at around 50% for each core (or 25% > total). This is with "low" resolution, btw. Watching full screen (still > low resolution) brings flash CPU usage to around 50% (maximum for one > core), I imagine total CPU usage doesn't change much, except for one the > core.
Thank you. I am able to watch Hulu ok but it stutters badly at times, but my CPU usage is more like 90% for each core at 'low' resolution, not full screen -- npviewer.bin takes over 40% CPU alone. (Test video was the beginning of Burn Notice Season 3 Episode 8, browser used was kazehakase) I'm guessing your GPU is more capable of providing hardware assist than mine, or the Athlon X2 is better than the Turion64 X2 running at the same clock. > The plugin is only using 100MB of memory, as far as I can tell, and it > doesn't appear to be climbing. I also only see one instance of the > plugin, and I have browsed multiple pages that use Flash, so it doesn't > appear to be leaving any rogue processes. > > I also don't see any npviewer.bin processes (the process is called > chromium-browser, and the command used to call it was something like > "/usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser <bla bla stuff> > --type=plugin --channel=<bla> --plugin-path=<plugin path>"), is > npviewer.bin what you're seeing, or is it something else? npviewer.bin is what I see in the "System Monitor" Processes tab. It used about 40MB in "low res" and 60MB in "low res - full screen" mode, and you're right, memory usage didn't continue to climb once those levels were reached. I must've been wrong about that. But I do see multiple instances of npviewer.bin, though they come and go. I'm using the 64-bit version of Flash from Adobe... I'm guessing you're using the 32-bit version? > That aside, I don't notice any major performance hit when watching > videos using Flash or browsing sites which use Flash. However, I still > think an alternative would be greatly beneficial (Gnash, maybe?). I was looking a Gnash, thanks for reminding me about it. But first, I think I'm going to try a GreaseMonkey script found here: http://krunchd.com/youtube-via-vlc that uses VLC to watch YouTube. The downside is that it's not true streaming video, you have to wait for the entire video to download first, but VLC has a pretty small memory & CPU footprint, so it may be worth that inconvenience. I definitely feel that alternatives need to be considered for Chrome OS, especially for netbooks. You and I have dual-core AMD processors running at 2 GHz, with a Nvidia GPU, and even then Flash seems to require 50% CPU or more. A netbook might have an Atom running at 1.6 GHz with an embedded Intel GPU (Pine Trail) or an off-chip Intel graphics chip, or an ARM A8 running around 1 GHz with its embedded GPU... on those less-powerful platforms, a YouTube or Hulu experience could be a lot less than optimal using the current version of Adobe Flash for Linux (compared to the WinXP/Win7 experience), and that alone could sink Chrome OS. jmho > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 02:50 -0700, Fx wrote: > > I'm curious to know, of those of you who have gotten Adobe Flash to > > work with Linux Chromium, what kind of performance and system load are > > you seeing? And what is your CPU and GPU? > > > I have not tried to use Chromium yet on my laptop (2GHz Turion64x2, > > nVidia GeForce Go 6150, Ubuntu Intrepid), but it seems that whenever I > > go to a website using Flash -- regardless of the browser -- the Adobe > > Flash plugin sucks up processor cycles and memory.... it quite > > literally sucks. Even after I leave the Flash-using website, the > > npviewer.bin process remains resident, consuming memory and %CPU. > > Sometimes I see multiple copies of npviewer.bin adversely affecting my > > system performance. > > > If Adobe Flash imposes a noticeable drag on my system, I hate to > > imagine what it might do to a single-core Atom netbook! I hope the > > Chrome OS team is aware of this potential problem and investigating > > possible solutions. My dream scenario would be for them to code a > > Flash alternative for Chrome, one that could be compiled on other > > distributions. That hope might be too ambitious... they might come up > > with something more clever. > > > As a start, a flash-blocking capability would help. Using VLC to play > > Flash videos might be a possibility. An extreme solution might be for > > YouTube to change formats, but it may be impossible to move the web > > away from Flash, so it's a partial solution at best. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
