FLASH performance boost?

[hoax32]

Well!
I finally got my G585 I was waiting for!
Runs 1080 smooth, play Resident Evil 5 MAX (ALL MAX + 4xAA) at 30FPS and GTA4 runs smooth too - but why in the world wont flash apps run smooth?
I always have to set it to low detail in order to get bearable frame rates but it's still not very smooth - IE and Adobe flash projector both the same frame rate.
I thought flash was accelerated by the GPU (HD7340 in this case).
Then why do 4+ HD videos run smooth at the same time but a flash app does not?
I guess the gpu only decodes video formats -but I don't know if that is true - i know that flash is mainly CPU tasking (AMD E2-1800 dual core @1.7GHz in this case) but how come it's this bad?
I mean I can rund Battlefield 3 on low (37-62FPS) but I can't run flash app with at least 25+ FPS!!???
That just doesn't make any sense!
All drivers and flash have bin updated, 8GB RAM and nothingelse CPU tasking in the background.

I know the CPU is only comparable to a old Core Duo BUT i i run everything else so good, why do flash apps give me problems?
Any ideas?
Any 1 know ways of improving flash performance?
Can I increase the load on the GPU some how?
Is the GPU being utilized for flash apps at all?
Thanks ahead of time palls!!!!

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

I mean I can rund Battlefield 3 on low (37-62FPS)

That's impossible. It has a HD 7340 which runs skyrim all at low at 800x600 at about 15fps.

Flash is all CPU, something which this laptop in particular is clearly lacking. Sorry there is not much to fix this.

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

That's impossible. It has a HD 7430 which runs skyrim all at low at 800x600 at about 15fps.

Flash is all CPU, something which this laptop in particular is clearly lacking. Sorry there is not much to fix this.

you kidding?
I get 40 frames lowest settings on a HD3000 playing skyrim - even more on this HD7340
@battlefield low = ALL LOW + 640x480 (lol) + all patches

[newtekie1]

I'm guessing something is screwed up with Flash. Try re-installing the latest version of Flash.

Also, flash is hardware accelerated through the GPU, sometimes this can cause issues. Try right clicking on the flash object and going to settings, then turn hardware acceleration off. This will force the CPU to do all the work, but honestly most modern CPUs are capable of doing all the rendering.

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

That's impossible. It has a HD 7430 which runs skyrim all at low at 800x600 at about 15fps.

Flash is all CPU, something which this laptop in particular is clearly lacking. Sorry there is not much to fix this.

If I can play flash smoothly on my E-300 desktop I'm sure his E2-1800 should be able to handle it.

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

you kidding?
I get 40 frames lowest settings on a HD3000 playing skyrim - even more on this HD7340
@battlefield low = ALL LOW + 640x480 (lol) + all patches

Deus Ex Human Revolution (2011) 23.78 10.14 fps
Fifa 12 (2011) 33.2 20.12 15.7 fps
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) 14.66 9.25 7.52 fps
LOW MED HIGH


Battlefield 3 (2011) low: 8.9 10.3 ~ 10 fps med.: 7.3 fps

I'm not kidding, but it seems you are

[AthlonX2]

I have a MiniPC with the E2-1800 and it really is a shitty APU.

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I'm guessing something is screwed up with Flash. Try re-installing the latest version of Flash.

Also, flash is hardware accelerated through the GPU, sometimes this can cause issues. Try right clicking on the flash object and going to settings, then turn hardware acceleration off. This will force the CPU to do all the work, but honestly most modern CPUs are capable of doing all the rendering.



If I can play flash smoothly on my E-300 desktop I'm sure his E2-1800 should be able to handle it.

Flash itself is not heavy, but it is dependent on how it's been coded. In the general case, Flash isn't hard on the CPU, Flash contents are hard on the CPU. People don't usually use Flash to display static text and bitmaps, they use it for vector animations and video and RIAs with custom-skinned components, and compositing all those vectors and gradients and alpha channels takes CPU - regardless of whether you use Flash or HTML5 or Silverlight or JavaFX or whatever. The second answer concerns video specifically, and the answer is this: no matter what technology you use to display video, only two things really affect the CPU usage: the codec, and whether or not it's hardware accelerated.

I know that in some heavy flash games my e7400 can get choppy. And that is miles ahead of his apu.

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

Deus Ex Human Revolution (2011) 23.78 10.14 fps
Fifa 12 (2011) 33.2 20.12 15.7 fps
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) 14.66 9.25 7.52 fps
LOW MED HIGH


Battlefield 3 (2011) low: 8.9 10.3 ~ 10 fps med.: 7.3 fps

I'm not kidding, but it seems you are

hmpf - i hate taking late videos but I guess I have no choice give me 10 minutes

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

hmpf - i hate taking late videos but I guess I have no choice give me 10 minutes

Run it at atleast 1024x768. And read what I posted earlier it will answer your question. I'm not trying to poke fun, but I find that hard to believe on a serious note.

Also run this:

http://browsermark.rightware.com/

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

Flash itself is not heavy, but it is dependent on how it's been coded. In the general case, Flash isn't hard on the CPU, Flash contents are hard on the CPU. People don't usually use Flash to display static text and bitmaps, they use it for vector animations and video and RIAs with custom-skinned components, and compositing all those vectors and gradients and alpha channels takes CPU - regardless of whether you use Flash or HTML5 or Silverlight or JavaFX or whatever. The second answer concerns video specifically, and the answer is this: no matter what technology you use to display video, only two things really affect the CPU usage: the codec, and whether or not it's hardware accelerated.

I know that in some heavy flash games my e7400 can get choppy. And that is miles ahead of his apu.

I've yet to find any flash content that lags my E-300. Yeah, there are probably some games out there that could probably do it, but for the most part a properly coded app should run fine on his E2-1800, and if an app doesn't then it isn't the CPU's fault.

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

Run it at atleast 1024x768.

He said low, 1024x768 isn't low in Battlefield, 640x480 is low.

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

He said low, 1024x768 isn't low in Battlefield, 640x480 is low.

The game would be impossible to play at 640x480 The gun would take up 3/4 of the screen! LOL

Run it at 640x480 then, but atleast on MP, where the game is actually played

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

The game would be impossible to play at 640x480 The gun would take up 3/4 of the screen! LOL

Run it at 640x480 then, but atleast on MP, where the game is actually played

haha you right!
Gun takes up ALOT!

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

The game would be impossible to play at 640x480 The gun would take up 3/4 of the screen! LOL

Run it at 640x480 then, but atleast on MP, where the game is actually played

It is quite playable at 640x480 actually, try it.

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

haha you right!
Gun takes up ALOT!

I myself have an APU laptop, has an E-350 with a dedicated 6470m which is more powerful than the 7340m and I can tell you from first hand experience it sucks with gaming, that's why I was so doubtful when you claimed those insane numbers. I mean 30-60fps on BF3?

I'll give it a try gaming at 640x480 just for a laugh

The lowest I can run it 800x600 and the game looks like it was knitted onto a quilt hahahah

lolwut

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

I myself have an APU laptop, has an E-350 with a dedicated 6470m which is more powerful than the 7340m and I can tell you from first hand experience it sucks with gaming, that's why I was so doubtful when you claimed those insane numbers. I mean 30-60fps on BF3?

haha camera died!
Im uploading the part i managed to record: Resident Evil 5 MAX FULL RESOLUTION 4xAA + motion blurr + MAX SHADOWS AND EVERYTHING ELSE - Now I didn't test this after installing the latest drivers but I ended up with a FPS range from 22(beginning)-53(towards end) (frame rates started increasing after 10-15 seconds after the GPU went into Turbo boost!)
Now thats about +%35 compared to my 8600M GS in my other laptop
GETTHE LATEST DRIVERS!!!
GAVE ME +%30 in most games and benchmarks!

Charging battery - more to come - but still doesn't answer my question :/

LINK: Resident Evil 5 MAX HD7340 - YouTube

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

but still doesn't answer my question :/

What apps do you run that lag?

RE5 has an inbuilt benchmark, should of just ran that, since walking around in a small area with no AI and little to nothing around is easy. It's like saying I can run Crysis at max at 30fps (which is kinda playable) but then once you come into contact with 5-6ai, add some physics happening, bullets, fast movement your in the low 10's. You get me?

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

What apps do you run that lag?

For example when I run Flash Benchmark 2008 by Snails Animation I get horrible results (around 12000 points - you guys can run it and share yalls score).

VIDEO LINK POSTED 2 POSTS ABOVE!!!!

Now if that frame rate doesn not impress you then I DO NOT KNOW what will with a low power CPU + IGP graphics!!
If I get up to 50 FRAMES on MAX in RE5 then I bet a million bucks I get AT LEAST the same frame rate on low in skyrim!!

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

For example when I run Flash Benchmark 2008 by Snails Animation I get horrible results (around 12000 points - you guys can run it and share yalls score).

VIDEO LINK POSTED 2 POSTS ABOVE!!!!

I will run it on my APU in a bit, then we can see if it's just cpu.

[hoax32]

I did not run the RE5 built in benchmark because it sucks a crap load of CPU power to measure frames - I get like 30FPS on LOWEST when I run the built in benchmark!!!
But on max gameplay i get almost double that!!!
It's abvious that the GPU could go even faster but the CPU is the bottleneck in this case!

OK ima see if I can capture a combat scene ingame!
i hope 30 seconds are enough cause thats all the batery power i have
FAIL me keeping the camera charged

[1nf3rn0x]

Originally Posted by hoax32

I did not run the RE5 built in benchmark because it sucks a crap load of CPU power to measure frames - I get like 30FPS on LOWEST when I run the built in benchmark!!!
But on max gameplay i get almost double that!!!
It's abvious that the GPU could go even faster but the CPU is the bottleneck in this case!

OK ima see if I can capture a combat scene ingame!
i hope 30 seconds are enough cause thats all the batery power i have
FAIL me keeping the camera charged

My GS2 gets around 7219 on Flash Benchmark 2008 (it's a phone), my e7400 gets 18283. AMD E-350 10027. It's lack of cpu power.

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by 1nf3rn0x

My GS2 gets around 7219 on Flash Benchmark 2008 (it's a phone), my e7400 gets 18283. AMD E-350 10027. It's lack of cpu power.

ok - Just ran it!
VERY PLAYABLE!
Im tackling a crowded group of 10+ in VERY LIMITED SPACE with a bunch of diarrhea flying around - ALOT OF SHADOWS and particles (swet/bullets/bullet flashes/lighting/over a dozen enemys cramped up).
I don't know how I could possibly stress it more in this game.
all max again
camera shuts off again but i captured more than I expected.
27-39FPS

LINK: HD7340 Resident Evil 5 MAX stress test - YouTube

[hoax32]

here is a video of a guy playing MW3 while screen capturing and detail level looks decent!
The frame rate also kicks @$$.
Note the CPU , RAM Speed and GPU are all a level down from mine.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Resistance Chaos ...
People have to stop underestimating "SLOW HARDWARE" hardware.
"WHAT?? - I CANT RUN SKYRIM MAX AT 120FPS???? SLOWW PICE OF SH!T COMPUTER!!!!!!!!" <--- example
Pritty much anything with a dual core and a intel HD3000 or better will run any game - just because it will be 640x480 + all low + patches and tweaks, doesn't mean that it's not runnning the game.
Here some videos of "slow" hardware running modern games:

Intel HD2000 running GTA 4 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Resistance Chaos ...
Resident Evil 5 on a GMA X3100!!! WOW Resident Evil 5 (Greatly Improved) on X3100 !!!.av...
Intel HD3000 running Battlefield 3 very smooth Intel HD 3000:Battlefield 3 Gameplay (30 fps) - Yo...


As for my probelm - still waiting for tipps on how to improve flash performance.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by hoax32

Intel HD3000 running Battlefield 3 very smooth Intel HD 3000:Battlefield 3 Gameplay (30 fps) - Yo...

Bad example, anything that has HD 3000 graphics has a substantially faster CPU than what you got which renders you point moot. Pretty sure the HD 3000 might be faster than a 7340 as well. If your CPU and GPU aren't bottlenecks, then you're memory bandwidth could be. Even more so since your 7340 is sharing memory with the system.

Watch your CPU usage and GPU usage as you play and tell us what comes out of it. If neither are maxing out then you have a memory bandwidth issue which I doubt you're going to resolve on that platform.

[hoax32]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Bad example, anything that has HD 3000 graphics has a substantially faster CPU than what you got which renders you point moot. Pretty sure the HD 3000 might be faster than a 7340 as well. If your CPU and GPU aren't bottlenecks, then you're memory bandwidth could be. Even more so since your 7340 is sharing memory with the system.

Watch your CPU usage and GPU usage as you play and tell us what comes out of it. If neither are maxing out then you have a memory bandwidth issue which I doubt you're going to resolve on that platform.

Main issue would be the memory indeed!
CPU maxes at around %80 in Battlefield 3 and GPU at %86.
I have a different second 4GB module comming in which is the exact same module as the first one - this will give me 1333MHz Dual Channel DDR3 instead of 1066 Single Channel which I hope will give me ~%10 performance gain.
Also the HD3000 is somewhat slower than a HD7340. (i have one with a i3)
I don't get the frames in RE5 that I get with the HD3000 and I have alot of glitches in GTA IV and a on average 5 lower FPS.
HD3000 performs about as fast as a HD6310 - the only reason why benchmarks show the HD3000 scoring higher than the HD6310 is because of the stronger CPU.
The CPU is what is bottlenecking most APU's out there - but when comparing PURE RAW GRAPHICS POWER only - then APU's win hands down!
A i3 with a HD7340 would be significantly faster than with a HD3000.
Also I noticed that the reviews and benchmarks of the HD7340 where done when it was first released - spring 2012.
The driver update in september brought major changes - for one it increased the shared amout of mem and also WIE gaming score from 5.8 to 6.0 and ~+5-20 frames extra in games depending on which title.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by hoax32

I have a different second 4GB module comming in which is the exact same module as the first one - this will give me 1333MHz Dual Channel DDR3 instead of 1066 Single Channel which I hope will give me ~ performance gain.

Your CPU doesn't support dual channel, mainly because your CPU only has 1 64-bit DDR3-channel. You'll be running two DIMMs on a single channel. The only benefit you'll get is the 1333Mhz speed over 1066Mhz. I don't know what to tell you though, this platform isn't designed for gaming. You're not going to get much of anything out of this platform when it comes to games.