121 thoughts on “GUIMark 2: The rise of HTML5”

1. Love these tests. Detailed and “real world.” I can’t comment specifically on the HTML5 tests (I’m not JavaScript or DOM performance expert), but a few thoughts on the Flash Gaming test:

   – The way your test is setup Flash will be using sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing for the moving characters, while the HTML5 version will not (I’m not a DOM expert, but I don’t believe it’s doing this). You can see that if you set the Flash Player’s quality setting to “LOW”, which will disable this, you get a boost in framerate (+5fps on my MacBookPro).

   – Further, most high-performance Flash games, for this particular scenario, would actually use the copyPixels() API to render directly to a bitmap (similar to drawing to Canvas) instead of having the Flash Player manage all of the display objects. This gives a bump in quality (pixel-perfect rendering for pixel-perfect art) and a significant bump in performance (as much as 10x in some of my games).

   If I get time this week I may tweak your example to use copyPixels() and see what the difference is.

2. Hi Sean, not intending to flame here but it’s not a correct comparison you can’t compare a markup language against a plugin ( can you ? ) an interesting comparison would be canvas vs flash drawing api, html vs xhtml, but correct me if i’m wrong.
   anyway Troy is correct there should be a performance boost with copyPixels() API and quality settings set to low.
   And if I’m not totally wrong I’d say that canvas was “built” in 2009 and the flash drawing api exists since 2005 so if memory serves well I’d say it’s not to fair of a comparison …

3. Troy,
   HTML5 automatically smooths bitmaps drawn to the canvas, so for the sake of fairness I’ve turned smoothing on for Flash. It’s true there are a lot of tweaks you can do in flash to get high performance bitmap rendering, and any real game would not be doing matrix transformations on the bitmaps. But the goal here is to stress the API functions that are comparable between platforms.

4. @Hugo

   Everyone and their brother is stating how HTML will replace Flash. This is what the author is trying to convey: If you plan on trying to replace your Flash games / applications with HTML5, here’s a look at the performance differences.

   Merk

5. Flash’s Text layout engine…would that help the Flash results w/text?

6. I agree with Troy, drawing the Bitmaps to a BitmapData would be the proper way to compare both things. (and Flash should be way faster that way)

   Another thing that most people don’t see is that it’s not just about the performance but also having many extra features that makes flash a better tool for complex interactive stuff.. – On canvas you don’t have “hit areas” for each element, no built-in “event dispatcher”, hard to make a preloaders, hard to do animations, usually bigger file size (the tower defense example has more than TWICE THE FILE SIZE of the flash version..), etc.. (the list goes forever..)

   BTW, you should check the CSS3 Animations and Transitions.. ( http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/InternetWeb/Conceptual/SafariVisualEffectsProgGuide/Animations/Animations.html ) – on the iPhone OS4 / Safari / Chrome the performance is really good. – canvas is not the only way to have some things moving on the screen

   PS: I’m mainly a HTML/JS/CSS developer..

7. That’s very nice!!

   Can you compare unity? It’s like flash, but 100x.

   Ex:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E1QSrbGBY0

   Google “honey defender”
   or “honey cheerios unity”

   .V

8. I looked at the code for the Text rendering text, it seems that you are not using the latest Text Layout Framework available in the Flash Player. I will try to play around with the code and see if I can send you an update.

   -Om

9. Miller,
   I may be wrong but if I did pure bitmap drawing in Flash I would lose the ability to apply transforms and I’d end up effectively single threading my rendering. CSS3 transitions are great but they’re bound to webkit which would lock out half the browsers tested.

   Vic,
   Don’t tempt me Unity3D vs Papervision would offer sobering results.

   Everyone else regarding Flash Text Layout engine. I had incorrectly assumed that the performance enhancements in the new text engine were being applied to plain old TextField. Looks like I have to use newer APIs.

10. Great post!

    Although, using an immediate mode renderer doesn’t mean that you have to block on draw calls. Browsers may buffer all drawing commands until JS execution is completely finished and the browser repaints. This buffer could be flushed prematurely if you called getImageData().

11. I tried a few optimizations in the Bitmap Gaming Test.

    Cutting the sprites down to 48×48 (didn’t remove anything that wasn’t 100% transparent) improved Canvas by about 60% and Flash by about 40%.

    Turning off the scaling improved Canvas by 80+% and Flash by about 25%.

    Those were just on Safari on the Mac, don’t have any other convenient testing capabilities. I was trying things I thought would improve Canvas, so it’s possible other improvements would skew the other way.

12. Excellent comparison. You can always find fault with any synthetic benchmark, but I don’t see any deliberate bias in the implementations.

    Personally, I saw much better performance for Flash than what you documented here. Here were my results:

    Vector Chart Test: 59.24
    Bitmap Game Test: 27.49
    Text Column Test: 52.72

    I’m running on a unibody MBP, 2.8GHz/4GB RAM, Chrome 5.0.375.29, Flash 10.1.53.22. The HTML 5 numbers were only slightly higher than your numbers, probably just a function of GHz.

    It would also be interesting to see what kind of performance improvements you could get by re-writing the HTML 5 code using WebGL, which gives you a direct JavaScript-> OpenGL bridge. This is implemented on the WebKit nightlies, Chrome developer channel, and the Firefox 3.7 nightlies.

13. Damn, if Flash 10.1 is already hitting the 60 fps ceiling I’m gonna have to scale the test up by at least 3x the current lines,bitmap,text.

    *Edit, Michael, after some investigation, I’m pretty sure you have your Flash setting set to low quality.

14. In order to achieve a staggering 17 fps for a tower defense game, you’d have to be an extraordinarily bad programmer. So how exactly did you set that test up?

15. vonWolfehaus et al,
    Please keep in mind, the goal here is NOT to create the most efficient tower defense game, it’s to create a test that overburdens the available APIs. When you create a strongman competition, you ask the competitors to move boulders, not basketballs.

16. I think it’s safe to assume we’re all aware of what a benchmark is, I was just asking if you could provide the actual design of the tests, perhaps even the code so we can run our own if desired. If I learned one thing from benchmarking Flash, it’s that results vary substantially, even within the same testing environment. Bizarre, I know, but it happens. So it’s customary to post source and/or exact designs so others can compare notes.

    I also wanted to make sure no one was confused by these tests, like @Troy Gilbert was–I admire his work and everything, I just think it’s quite unfair to call these types of tests “real world” (even with the quotes).

    Sorry for interrogating, and I sincerely thank you for the effort you put into these tests. Cheers =)

17. Sean, thanks for the work on the comparisons. While many will target specific aspects of what you’ve shown, it gets everyone thinking about the big picture: replacing Flash content with HTML5 content. We begin to consider both actual and perceived performance, using multiple animated/video widgets on a given page, as well as the ease with which said content can be produced.

    Your doing the right thing by putting data points around certain cases, and allowing the community to improve HTML5 to the point that it’s a suitable replacement for Flash, where appropriate.

18. HTML5 just isn’t there yet.

    I recently experimented with using CSS3 animations (because that would eventually have to replace flash graphically) on Apple’s own iPad page.

    My version uses CSS3 animations instead of scripaculous effects and only works in Chrome / Safari.

    http://www.visualmedia.nl/html5/ipad/

    CPU usage is around 40% with both solutions.

19. vonWolfehaus,
    All the sources are linked directly within the examples, have a look.

    Michael,
    I agree, I hope some of the browser vendors are able to use examples like this to start setting goals to try and reach with HTML5

20. These are superb tests and your presentation is remarkably agenda free.

21. > the browser will immediately calculate and re-composite that change before
    > moving on to the next line of javascript

    This is wrong. Pretty much any modern browser will just note that something needs to be recomputed and move on. It’ll recompute things off a timer or when asked for layout information explicitly, and will re-composite off a timer.

    Note also that Gecko is in fact experimenting with moving to a more retained-mode model for the actual painting, and yes including painting off the main thread.

22. You should probably do the comparison with where Firefox will be in the (not too distant) future i.e. using its hardware accelerated retained mode rendering framework that’s currently under development. See Robert O’Callahan’s post about it:

    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/04/layers.html

    See also Bas Schouten’s blog (linked to in the article above) about setting up a nightly build of Firefox with hardware acceleration.

23. In some of my test calculating time with new Date().time was sometimes even 2-3x faster than getTimer()

24. Thanks Sean for putting together great tests like this.

    I assume that all these tests are being done with Flash Player 10 and not 10.1? Also something to keep in mind for developers while benchmarking Flash is that there are slight speed differences between the debug version and the non-debug version of the Flash Player.

    Adding a WebGL test would be interesting, but not very practical as no one uses WebGL in any commercial sites, as it’s still very much in flux and none of the browsers have WebGL support turned on as default.

25. For most purposes, accelerated CSS transforms should fill the performance gap (currently in OSX/iphone Safari, I believe Mozilla is working on implementing them as well). However, they might not do the trick for something like GUIMark 2, and WebGL isn’t that bad of a suggestion for a more complex application like it. For most timeline-based animations (eg: Flash animations, and not applications visualizing data from an XML or realtime source) though, CSS transforms are fine (easy to code, IDEs for designers will follow suit, check out SproutCore Greenhouse for RIAs) will be accelerated in most browsers shortly, and even the IE team is doing 2d acceleration for them (why not use WebKit and tie the renderer to DX? Pride?). To test it on your MacBook though, grab a WebKit nightly build for OSX, I don’t think it’s all there in 4.0.5 .

26. Boris,

    All of my tests with every browser so far show that creating a function with 100 complex draw calls to the canvas will perhaps take 20 milliseconds to process. I’m not sure what’s being blocked within that function to take that long, but it’s far more then “noting that something needs to be recomputed and moving on”

    The main event loop is being blocked in process to render the scene, it’s not waiting to the end of the event loop to aggregate all calls to render.

27. why on earth did you do the linux tests on a live cd without proper display drivers? those results are pretty much irrelevant. who’s looking for performance when they’re using a live cd?

    there is chrome and opera on linux too…

28. Yeah I want to revisit the Linux tests in a few days once I get a better triple booting strategy figured out. The current tutorials for triple booting under bootcamp were a bit daunting, and I didn’t want to exclude Linux in the off chance I screwed up the process.

29. The grid lines are not pixel aligned in the html5 version. Stroking with a width of 1 will stroke half a pixel on either side of the line, therefore the lines need to go through the middle of a pixel instead of a pixel edge.

    This patch will fix it:

    diff –git a/HTML5ChartingTest.html b/HTML5ChartingTest.html
    index 5817921..3fb0d54 100644
    — a/HTML5ChartingTest.html
    +++ b/HTML5ChartingTest.html
    @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ function processFrame(){
    var yCoord;
    for(var x=0; x<=totalMinutes; x+=40){
    xCoord = x*chartXSpread;
    – draw.moveTo(xCoord, 0);
    – draw.lineTo(xCoord, chartHeight);
    + draw.moveTo(xCoord+.5, 0);
    + draw.lineTo(xCoord+.5, chartHeight);
    }
    for(var y=0; y<=highestStock; y+=20){
    yCoord = y*chartYSpread;
    – draw.moveTo(0, yCoord);
    – draw.lineTo(chartWidth, yCoord);
    + draw.moveTo(0, yCoord+.5);
    + draw.lineTo(chartWidth, yCoord+.5);
    }
    draw.stroke();
    draw.closePath();

    I imagine a large reason for the difference in performance on this demo is the anti-aliasing quality. Flash does 4×4 supersampling, whereas most browsers use much higher quality. It's pretty easy to see the difference if you take a close look.

30. *Really* slow computer here, and both tests (vector and bitmap) were much faster in HTML version (vector 8-9 vs 2-3, bitmap 4 vs 2-3). When I changed flash quality from High to Low, however, Flash performance doubled (obviously, vector looked worse then, but bitmap shown no visible difference).

    Browser is Opera 10.52 on Win XP.

31. Good call Jeff, I’ll get the change in as soon as possible and hopefully rerun the tests tonight.

    Update – I’ve added Jeffs changes in, however fps values haven’t significantly changed at all, some browsers lost 0.01 fps, some gained 0.02. I don’t think this change will warrant a retest across all platforms.

32. >The entire rectangle view needs to be cleared each frame to account
    >for all the changes happening in the scene.

    There is no need to clear anything if everything is overdrawn either way.

    Also, if your comment form requires JavaScript but pretends it doesn’t.

33. > With Nvidia drivers I’d imagine the real
    > numbers would be closer to Mac performance.

    Don’t bet on it. Under Windows directly manipulating bitmap data in flash (using BitmapData) is normally faster than letting the flash runtime do it for you (using Bitmap and Sprite). Under many flavours of Linux the reverse is true. Flash may be multi platform but it is certainly not platform agnostic in terms of performance and optimization.

34. my results for Arch Linux 32-bit, nvidia drivers, Firefox 3.6.3 and FP 10.0.45.2 (Debug)

    13.6, 26

    16.3, 15.5

    24, 15

    I think the bitmap test would be the hardest hit by the debug player, i’ll switch to the release version later and see.

35. Firefox 3.7a4-pre (a nightly build from a few weeks ago), Windows 7, Intel i7 920, nVidia GeForce 9600GT. This build has Direct2D acceleration enabled, which is a brand-new feature.

    Flash, vector test: 50FPS
    HTML, vector test: 3.9FPS

    Flash, bitmap test: 32FPS
    HTML, bitmap test: 58FPS

    Flash, text test: 2.4FPS
    HTML, text test: between 40 and 55FPS

    These tests really aren’t testing anything useful or relevant. The vector test is only testing how quickly the renderer can draw anti-aliased lines. Big deal – how often do you need to draw that many anti-aliased lines that quickly? The bitmap test is only testing how quickly the renderer can do bilinear filtering, which is inherently slow in software anyway. That’s why Firefox with Direct2D beats Flash on my machine.

    Oh, and Flash benefits from having Direct2D enabled in Firefox as well. If I disable it, the Flash scores are cut in half…

36. Jeff, why on earth would you make the suggestion without actually testing it? Surely you would’ve seen that wasn’t the issue when you tested it?

37. Great post ! Really usefull and showing the real situation to pepole. Let’s hope that more of them will realize it
    @Sean
    “Everyone else regarding Flash Text Layout engine. I had incorrectly assumed that the performance enhancements in the new text engine were being applied to plain old TextField. Looks like I have to use newer APIs.”
    You are almost right. To achieve this you can use Flex 4 and the new component (instead of the )

38. Great work, Sean. A big help to all of us working in the RIA world.

    But I’d like to comment on your comment that the Text Column test “doesn’t simulate any real world test cases”. The funny thing is that this is by far the most relevant test for one of the biggest HTML/Flex/Silverlight battlegrounds: finanical applications. By far the most complex Flex application so far written is the Matrix trading app created by Morgan Stanley (at a total cost, including the back end, of nearly $100m). And the HTML app Caplin Trader, created by my company, Caplin Systems, must be one of the most complex Ajax apps ever built. Many other similar apps are being built right now by major banks.

    In all cases, data is being streamed over the internet at high rates to end users (100 updates/sec per user is not unusual) and all this data is getting displayed on the screen.

    So please persevere with the Text Column test — for many of us out here, it’s the most relevant test of all!

39. Just wanted to report a couple of strange results with Flash 10.1 r53 / Chrome 5.0.375.38 beta on Mac OSX 10.5.8 (old MB, 2Ghz Core duo, 1GB DDR2 667):

    Vector Flash: 60.08fps
    Bitmap Flash: 19.81fps
    Text Flash: 57.77fps

    For comparison, here are the HTML5 results:

    Vector HTML5 2px: 2.17fps
    Vector HTML5 1px: 12.69fps
    Bitmap HTML5: 3.8fps
    Text HTML5: 12.63fps

    While HTML5 results are similar to yours, except for the old MB being slow, the 10.1 Flash results for Vector and Text are more than 2x faster.

40. You should still be able to try Opera 10.5x on Mac (now out in Final), and the testing versions for Linux can be run from tarballs (so they should be workable in a LiveCD environment). Please update with those numbers.

    Also, I am very curious about the HTML5 numbers for Opera Mobile, the newest features are available in a hobby build for N900/N800/N810 (except JIT, but other Carakan features are present). If someone could provide Fennec+Flash numbers to compare against Opera Mobile HTML5, that would be great. The Maemo-compatible build is available from labs.opera.com, courtesy of “The Smooth Sailing Team”.

41. MartinodF,
    Is there a chance your quality settings are on Low? I’ve seen the 10.1 numbers you’re reporting from others but I’m unable to reproduce them on my machine without setting my quality to low.

42. iPad (32GB + 3G) results:

    2px Vector: 0.7 fps
    1px Vector: 3.23 fps
    Bitmap Game 1.29 fps
    Text Column: 3.18 fps
    Vector Mobile: 19.44 fps
    Bitmap Mobile: 23.97 fps

43. Here an Firefox tutorial how to turn on the GPU Rendering Direct2D / DirectWrite for Windows 7 and Windows Vista SP2.

    http://www.x.se/65hp

    http://www.x.se/uayh

    Please upgrade your Adobe Flash Player.

    http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/

    Adobe Flash Player 10.1 release candidate 4.

44. I have made a quick unoptimized Java version of the Bitmap Gaming Test.

    http://soupgames.net/guimark2/

    On my Windows system, the Java version is *much* faster than the Flash version. I suspect because the drawing functions will be hardware accelerated. On the MacBook pro, Flash and Java were tied.

    Let me know what your test results are!

    Test results
    ————
    2007 Thinkpad T60p, running Windows XP, Java 1.6.0_20:
    HTML Firefox 3.6: 4.28 FPS
    Flash 10 Firefox: 12.9 FPS
    Java: 21.2 FPS.

    2008 MacBook Pro:
    HTML Firefox 3.6: 4.5 FPS
    Flash 10 Firefox: 13.5 FPS
    Java: 13.5 FPS

45. *STOP PRESS*

    Made a small optimization (using a BufferStrategy in Java).

    Java jumped from 21 to *215* FPS on my XP machine – this is probably the hardware acceleration that finally kicked in. No difference on Mac.

    2007 Thinkpad T60p, running Windows XP, Java 1.6.0_20:
    HTML Firefox: 4.28 FPS
    Flash 10 Firefox: 12.9 FPS
    Java: 215.2 FPS. (No difference between browsers.)

    2008 MacBook Pro:
    HTML Firefox 3.6: 4.5 FPS
    Flash 10 Firefox: 13.5 FPS
    Java: 13.5 FPS

46. jesper juul !could you explain!(using bufferstrategy in java)was that made in the browser?if so is there a way to activate it in the about:config(java)small bunp i dont notice but these number are a huge difference would be nice to have info on the trick you used!ty

47. @Carol

    You can download the program source code on the web page: http://soupgames.net/guimark2/

    The concept is that Java can deal with off-screen images in a few different ways. I was first just creating an image, drawing to it, and then drawing it on the screen.

    Since Java 1.4 (I think), there has been a feature called a BufferStrategy that takes care of creating the offscreen image, showing it on the screen, and so on, for you. To use this, you have to change the Java program – you can’t do it in the browser configuration.

48. ok ty for info would have been a nice option if it speeded up java like you mention!)
    this is a good tread(i was testing firefox(yesterdays nightly)

49. mm!i tried your modified version(java latest)(w7 64)and it stays at same speed.i sure wish what was different

50. @carol What results are you getting?

    I have just tested on a Dell Latitude E6500 running XP:
    Firefox HTML: 6.5 FPS
    Firefox Flash: 19.6 FPS
    Java: 36.5 FPS

    (This machine has integrated graphics, so that would explain why the Java speedup is less pronounced.)

51. Firefox 3.7a5-pre (a nightly build from a few weeks ago), Windows 7 (64),amd x2 550,ati 5770 . This build has Direct2D acceleration enabled,and directwrite enabled.

    Flash, vector test: 35.78 fps
    HTML, vector test: 5.93 fps

    Flash, bitmap test: 19.74 fps
    HTML, bitmap test: 58.82 fps

    Flash, text test: 2.64 fps
    HTML , text test: 49.1 fps

    vector 1 pixel : 6.12 fps

    java bitmap 600 : 39.82 fps

52. flash quality superior !

53. …any chance of seeing more 10.5x numbers on that same machine? It’s out for OSX and you can run it from a tarball on Linux, please give it a whirl.

54. opera 10.53, Windows 7 (64),amd x2 550,ati 5770 .

    Flash, vector test:41.77 fps
    HTML, vector test: 28.76 fps

    Flash, bitmap test: 21.5 fps
    HTML, bitmap test: 16.09fps this crashed,but when opera restarted it did load the second time.

    Flash, text test: 2.52 fps
    HTML , text test:32.46 fps

    vector 1 pixel : 28.85 fps

    java bitmap 600 : 39.45 fps

    as for dsx i have amd cpu dont think it work they are compatible.if there is a way i dont know it and dont have an osx copy
    (sorry)

55. google=firefox in all but 2 test
    bitmap,text (no Direct2D acceleration enabled,and no directwrite enabled for google)
    but if you load app online that take advange of these,firefox is the clear winner.
    and the fact it isnt subject to far futur licence issue(htm5 pay to download in apple,ms,google version) is a huge reason to love firefox(openvideo.dailymotion.com)html5 keep up the good work firefox team.

56. http://beta.html5test.com/
    heres a nice little test a lot of browser wont like!

57. Thanks for this really outstanding analysis.

    And I’d like to echo the thoughts of a previous commenter. I work on RIAs in the financial industry and both the vector test and the text test are 100% real world. I have an app that is basically the vector test on steroids. I tried a build-out in HTML5 of this app and in the real-world it was a non-starter.

    This analysis is a really fantastic baseline for a lot of my work going forward.

    Thanks again.

58. http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2010/03/02/presenting-direct2d-hardware-acceleratio
    here are some tip for html5
    also if you plan to test webm you will need the proper version and add this to the link
    &webm=1
    as for the result yep im an amateur!i just dig a lot.
    the low result you ll get in javascript are normal.since lot of error were made in those code and would be very hard to modify
    (cross your finger)ecmascript 5 is official,mozilla only miss tree feature.now the only thing left is learn ecmascript ways.thats gona be hard since not many knows how to program it .might need to use the older jslint(es3)

59. @jesper juul! did you tweak you java test for firefox ?i retried today your test (post 47 )

    Firefox 3.7a5-pre ,received an update on the 21 of may, Windows 7 (64),amd x2 550,ati 5770 . This build has Direct2D acceleration enabled,and directwrite enabled.

    java bitmap 600:buffer:strategy:647.63 fps
    :buffer:image :43.5 fps

    i dont know what this tweak is but if i were you i would pass it on to firefox! do you see the huge difference !true its on the latest nightly but still its very good new if it can be applied to firefox itself in some way!

60. I’m seeing significantly better performance in Flash 10.1 (rc5) than 10.0. The quality setting defaulted to High (and I didn’t change it). Win7 64bit, IE8 7600.16385, Chrome 4.1.249.1064

    Vector Charting
    Chrome 10.0 – 39.9
    Chrome 10.1 – 47.54
    IE 10.1 – 60.06
    Chrome HTML – 6.57

    Bitmap Game Test
    Chrome 10.0 – 31.83
    Chrome 10.1 – 33.46
    IE 10.1 – 38.43
    Chrome HTML – 11.86

    Text Column Test
    Chrome 10.0 – 2.35
    Chrome 10.1 – 26.92
    IE 10.1 – 31.12
    Chrome HTML 29.88

61. I’m seeing some really weird (and awesome) results with Chrome 5.0.375.53 on Mac. In the html tests, Chrome is pretty much exactly as fast as Firefox 3.7a5pre (20100523, to be exact) and somewhat slower than Safari 4.

    In the Flash tests, though, Chrome in combination with 10.1 RC 5 blows the other browsers right out of the water:

    GUIMark 2 – vector
    FP 10.1RC5 in Safari 4.0.5: 30.61
    FP 10.1RC5 in Chrome 5: 60.09
    FP 10.1RC4 in Chrome 5: 54.68

    GUIMark 2 – Bitmap
    FP 10.1RC5 in Safari 4.0.5: 14.49
    FP 10.1RC5 in Chrome 5: 16.89
    FP 10.1RC4 in Chrome 5: 14.89

    GUIMark 2 – Text
    FP 10.1RC5 in Safari 4.0.5: 30.58
    FP 10.1RC5 in Chrome 5: 59.8
    FP 10.1RC4 in Chrome 5: 44.61

    I’ve got no idea where this difference in performance is coming from – but it is definitely real, as the animations look much smoother in Chrome than in Safari. Also, 10.1 RC5 is a huge step forward from RC4, especially when it comes to text rendering.

62. i dont know what apple do to chrome but the test i get with latest flash (rc6) is 24 fps way better then the 3 fps or so i had previously here but still very short of the firefox latest nightly(window)
    i dont get why firefox is so slow at vector test tho. i mean 6 fps ?i sure dont get why vector is so bad in firefox .

63. java bitmap 600:buffer:strategy:585 fps
    buffer:image :39 fps

    test of poster 47 (java version)
    as you can see a huge difference.is there a way to take advantage of this in browser?good question!

64. I just thought I should point out that Flash Player 10.1 uses Core Animation on Mac OS X for rendering on Firefox 3.7 nightlies. I’ve heard that Safari and Chrome both have support in various stages as well, but I’m not using either of their nightlies.

65. You explain that the html5 option forces a refresh with every line drawn. In the Java version, the buffer strategy lets you draw to offscreen graphics first so that there’s only 1 image drawn to the screen per frame. Is no such technique possible with html5 canvas drawing?

66. weird it bitpmap java (fast )doesnt work this morning .worked 2 second ago!probably a java error
    god knows we ll never run out of those lol!

67. nope firefox did something or one setting i got is interfering with java tweak because i cant speed it up now.ho well at least i got to see that it was possible ty jasper for that tweak info
    dont know what specific condition it needs to works but its pretty specific from what i m seeing today!

68. my.opera.com/desktopteam/

    Could one of you kids PLEASE throw in some OSX numbers for 10.5x or 10.60 alpha? Actually, both on the same system if possible. 10.60 claims very large increases in javascript and render speed, and has 3x higher text parsing (than chrome) on Peackeeper!

69. i bet you don’t know what cacheAsBitmap is. and i certainly think there is no GPU acceleration enabled on the flash movies.

70. i peaked into the code.
    now i wish i didn’t.

    Bitmap Gaming Test:

    – smoothing = true
    – bitmapData = this.bitmaps[frame].bitmapData;
    2 kinda inefficient lines.

    – what is this?
    for(var i:int=0; i<monsters.length; i++){…

    try this instead and you don't have to register an array, a step counter, just 1 object.
    for (x=getChain(); x; x = x.next){}

    you can go way part 3000 with that @ almost 100 fps. (if you caching bitmaps accordingly)

71. for the text test:

    if you use system fonts and not embedded fonts the rendering will be thrown up by flash and there is a constant stream of visual representation from the system into flash.
    this is very slow indeed, and also points out that as this not flash is rendering the text.

    embed the fonts, and you should get a better result. you may use the antialiasing mode for animation for another boost of performance.

    i don’t blame you for this. most people build space stations in flash but they just simply can’t use the text API. is something like the print API, people don’t even know that exists such thing in flash, yet alone the power of it.

72. I tested the GUIMark – Text Column Test with the new Adobe Flash 10.1.53.64 (official release) and i got an average frame rate of 24.62 fps on Firefox on Windows 7 x64. A big jump from an average of just 1.48 fps.

73. yep flash 10.1 is faster on text but there is a bug or something is wrong because i get shding artifact or sutch when i try to stream i does artifact i both chrome or firefox didnt do that in previous official released

74. Your TL;DR section was too long; I didn’t read it.

75. http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/?p=1030 by the way there is the java version of these test avail to this linkj
    i dfont know if they are accurate programe but it give a fair indication that if that if microsoft fixed their bug pertaining to the gdi-d3d issue we would gain tremendous performance (probably why ms isnt keen on fixing it(no fixing no sun java acceleration for lot of feature ,and aero as a bug that stop some java acceleration as well
    last but not least flash 10.1 accl give bad image quality in lot of system so ifg you have artefact disable accleretion of flash(ya i knoqw why rave about all those acclereation if it cant be used because mainly of ms it kind of defeat the purpose of getting acceleration lol

76. by the way if you are a ubuntu user this page and the one i linked previously is pretty mutch useless since
    these would need to be either written in opencl,opengl webgl version of java and html5 since
    ms software arent in linux .might be their own version avail soon who know one thing is sure without hard ware acceleration i saw what ubuntu miss to compete with ms its a test similar to these that would show the power of the graphic .so far .im not impressed for acceleration be it in java or html5.(firefox)(ubuntu)

77. Latest chrome 5.0.375.86 OSX with embedded flash has HW acceleration, and boy does it show.

    Flash
    59.78
    24.94
    60.1

    HTML5
    3.07
    7.49
    16.72

    These are consistent with the results reported earler on the beta chrome build. This is *not* low quality (as far as I can tell the low quality option has been removed in this version anyway.. it’s not like anyone ever used it) … it’s just screaming fast.

78. 10.60 is now out.

79. for some weird reason the newer firefox minefield made error in their new programming cause it prevent html5 acceleration right now im 30% the speed i used to get in my previous post here.so there is only one thing that can have happened .acceleration dont work anymore on the latest minefield.i do hope mozilla look into this issue cause dropping from 55 fps to 17 fps is a major drop.

80. A quick, but *very* important note about the canvas bitmap drawing benchmark:

    Always ALWAYS pass another HTMLCanvasElement to drawImage. Passing an Image is extremely inefficient (for reasons I’m not 100% clear on, but probably because it has to copy pixels from the DOM Image representation everytime). Creating canvas elements for each image in the assets array boosts the average FPS in 64bit Chrome in Linux on my laptop from 8.22 to 14.99.

81. this works fine in linux ubuntu!but for some odd reason stopped being vector and bitmap accelerated in html5
    (firefox latest minefield)cant compare with other borwser since most arent accelerated yet.
    we ll have to wait and see if mozilla find what was in 3.7.5 minefield that isnt in minefield 4 /3

82. bitmap html5 is back to 60 fps (yep firefox found what the acceleration issue was!(we were at 16 fps for a bunch of week truely very slow)

83. You should strongly consider adding a Silverlight test to your benchmark. Its adoption is now globally above 60% (source: riastats.com) and tests like those at http://www.bubblemark.com have shown that Silverlight 3.0/4.0 CLR (.NET) apps significantly outperform Flash and HTML apps. Excluding it from an RIA performance benchmark would be like excluding Usain Bolt from a 100m sprint race.

84. silverlight has always been the fastest but the fact other standard are more widly accepted or being accepted pretty mutch make the speed of silverlight irrelevent!
    but if you want to know on the site you provided with the silverlight 3 test i got 1054 fps!
    yep close to twice faster then anything i tested on this page(yep silverlight is scary fast)
    but i wonder when people will start to use it more !that a very good question.so far people pretty mutch still use flash!

85. Tried the various tests with IE9 beta1 + Flash 10.1 64bit beta
    The results are positive for IE9, but the Flash beta sometimes scored only 1/10

    Vector charting
    HTML 5 8,84
    Flash 3,18

    Bitmap Gaming Test
    HTML 5 58
    Flash 2,46

    Text Column Test
    HTML 5 50,49
    Flash 10,41

    Tried Jesper Juuls 1.3 version of the Bitmap Gaming Test using JRE 1.6.0.22
    score 58,41 at 600 monsters

86. I HATE U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

87. I want to point out that the immediate mode rendering of HTML 5 can be optimized at the implementaion level, where each rendering command can be queued first and then processed once all user game code has finished. This is what most current multi-thread DirectX/OpenGl/Console game engine does, and should be able to scale with multiple core.

88. I have some doubts about the reliability of your method of measuring FPS in HTML5. On a low-end laptop with WinXP and Firefox 3.6, your HTML5 Text test reported a result of 13 FPS, but visually the browser display was largely frozen – it only updated a few times during the test.

89. Did tests again with IE9 RC1 + Flash 10.1 64bit Square preview 3
    The results are positive for IE9 especially Vector test , but the Flash not so much
    And Jesper Juuls test now fails to load!!

    Vector charting
    HTML 5 before 8,84 now 25,45
    Flash before 3,18 now 4,59

    Bitmap Gaming Test
    HTML 5 before 58 now 59,58
    Flash before 2,46 now 3,73

    Text Column Test
    HTML 5 before 50,49 now 49,96
    Flash before 10,41 now 11,61

    Tried Jesper Juuls 1.3 version of the Bitmap Gaming Test using JRE 1.6.0.23
    at 600 monsters before 58,41 now IE9 RC fails

90. Re-installing JAVA solved it… the Juul test dropped to 50,24

91. did you read what i posted on the juul thread do those step and you should have speed

92. Firefox 4 x64 + Flash 10.3 on Win 7 x64

    Vector charting
    HTML 5 25.24 fps
    Flash 50.16 fps

    Bitmap Gaming Test
    HTML 5 57.14 fps
    Flash 39.24 fps

    Text Column Test
    HTML 5 55.77 fps
    Flash 27.26 fps

93. update!the java trick jesperjuul had publish no longer work in minefield as of this week i would have thot mozilla would try to take advange of this trick in some way in firefox but it seems to be the reverse so now silverlight is the only true fast option.and by a lot!before?silverlight was only 2 time faster then the fastest thing avail anywhere!just thot i would let you guys know about java.ho not because there isnt speed in java the trouble is ms have bug and lot of trick for it arent widelly used !(or widely unknown to most! i guess)

94. SeaMonkey/2.1b3 x32 + Flash 10.3 on Win 7 x32 sp1

    Vector charting
    HTML 5 23.58 fps
    Flash 49.53 fps

    Bitmap Gaming Test
    HTML 5 58.84 fps
    Flash 49.16 fps

    Text Column Test
    HTML 5 41.77 fps
    Flash 29.12 fps

95. after a few test i can safely say ie9 is the better browser now!(http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/Default.html)dont forget to activate active x protection (then you can disable selectily)

96. Great work!!!

97. Why didn’t you use FTE for the text column test?

98. Hi, I made an update for your flash text demo, using the FTE instead of standard TextField class.

    Here the source + assets:
    http://memmie.lenglet.name/documents/lab/FlashFTETextTest.zip

    It’s use flash.text.engine classes to emulate a standard TextField to test performances. It’s not perfect, but work correctly for this demo. I’m pretty sure (but I tested only on few mac browsers) that using FTE is better than TextField.

    FTE need CFF fonts (OTF). I convert your both fonts (Champignon and Star Jedi) with FontForge but I didn’t found the correct way to embed these fonts directly with Flex SDK (with font embed metatag) without getting errors. So, I compile a SWF file with Flash Pro CS5.5 and embed its symbols (fonts class) with class embed metatag.

99. http://www.conceivablytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gui1.jpg

    http://www.conceivablytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gui2.jpg

    http://www.conceivablytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gui3.jpg

    HTML5 browsers totally annihilates Flash now in performance, it’s not even a contest anymore, Flash is outdated, obsolete relic of the past.

100. Two years ago I had an itch that needed scratching. “RIA” was the future of the web and every major company seemed to have a solution to get us there. I developed the first version of GUIMark to not only get a good understanding of the respective technologies, but also to give my clients through EffectiveUI and everyone else something to actively gauge the rendering performance of the different runtimes.

Comments are closed.