[Openchrome-users] Slow performance with Flash player#

[Fredrik Ohrstrom]

I have an VIA EPIA SP 800 running Ubuntu Feisty,
with mplayer from multiverse and the youtube-dl python script
I can download and play youtube movies full screen with only ~20% cpu usage.
Something is not quite right with the audio sync, but I suppose that
can be fixed.

Mplayer makes use of the Xv extension and the flash plugin probably
does not. In fact simply having a paused flash player on screen takes 14% cpu!
So it must be doing a lot of other unnecessary stuff as well.

//Fredrik


2007/6/27, Brian Candler <B.Candler at pobox.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:51:35AM +0100, John Robinson wrote:
> > >Thanks for that - figures here don't look good:
> > >
> > >(II) VIA(0): Benchmarking video copy. Less is better.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Timed   libc YUV420 copy... 15725702. Throughput: 37.7 MiB/s.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Timed kernel YUV420 copy... 15610756. Throughput: 38.0 MiB/s.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Timed    SSE YUV420 copy... 8894087. Throughput: 66.7 MiB/s.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Timed    MMX YUV420 copy... 9003383. Throughput: 65.9 MiB/s.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Ditch 3DNow! YUV420 copy... Not supported by CPU.
> > >(--) VIA(0): Timed   MMX2 YUV420 copy... 8775754. Throughput: 67.6 MiB/s.
> >
> > Hmm, that really doesn't look good. On my EPIA M-II 10000, which is
> > pretty similar to your EPIA M 10000, I get:
> > (II) VIA(0): Benchmarking video copy. Less is better.
> > (--) VIA(0): Timed   libc YUV420 copy... 7644387. Throughput: 77.6 MiB/s.
> > (--) VIA(0): Timed kernel YUV420 copy... 7638392. Throughput: 77.7 MiB/s.
> > (--) VIA(0): Timed    SSE YUV420 copy... 2826591. Throughput: 209.8 MiB/s.
> > (--) VIA(0): Timed    MMX YUV420 copy... 4419723. Throughput: 134.2 MiB/s.
> > (--) VIA(0): Ditch 3DNow! YUV420 copy... Not supported by CPU.
> > (--) VIA(0): Timed   MMX2 YUV420 copy... 3888107. Throughput: 152.6 MiB/s.
> >
> > And I'm running some very old stuff:
> >
> > Jun  8 03:07:59 out kernel: [drm] Initialized drm 1.0.1 20051102
> > Jun  8 03:07:59 out kernel: [drm] Initialized via 2.9.1 20060111 on
> > minor 0: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8623 [Apollo CLE266] integrated
> > CastleRock graphics
>
> For comparison, I just tried booting from a Fedora 7 Live CD, to get a newer
> kernel than my Ubuntu 6.06.
>
> Linux version 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7 (kojibuilder at xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com)
> ...
> [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
> [drm] Initialized via 2.11.0 20061227 on minor 0
>
> This gives X benchmarking results which are even better than your M-II:
>
> $ grep -A6 Bench /v/fedora-Xorg.0.log
> (II) VIA(0): Benchmarking video copy. Less is better.
> (--) VIA(0): Timed   libc YUV420 copy... 4209131. Throughput: 140.9 MiB/s.
> (--) VIA(0): Timed kernel YUV420 copy... 4155820. Throughput: 142.7 MiB/s.
> (--) VIA(0): Timed    SSE YUV420 copy... 2440055. Throughput: 243.1 MiB/s.
> (--) VIA(0): Timed    MMX YUV420 copy... 3768653. Throughput: 157.4 MiB/s.
> (--) VIA(0): Ditch 3DNow! YUV420 copy... Not supported by CPU.
> (--) VIA(0): Timed   MMX2 YUV420 copy... 2622051. Throughput: 226.2 MiB/s.
>
> Fedora did let me install the flash player (even when running from CD). But
> I got the same results - approx 1.1 frames per second for the talking head
> at the start of the BBC parenting video site. I then rebooted into Ubuntu
> and retimed it, and in fact it was marginally faster, about 1.2 frames per
> second.
>
> So anyway, the conclusion seems to be:
> - Adobe Flash player video performance sucks on anything less than a high-
>   performance CPU
> - VIA/OpenChrome performance has improved significantly for recent kernels
>
> At least I know it's not something I did :-) Many thanks to everyone who
> took the trouble to reply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> openchrome-users mailing list
> openchrome-users at openchrome.org
> http://wiki.openchrome.org/mailman/listinfo/openchrome-users
> Main page:
> http://www.openchrome.org
> Wiki:
> http://wiki.openchrome.org
> User Forum:
> http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-view_forum.php?forumId=1
>
>
>