- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:46:02 -0700
- To: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
- Cc: Kyle Simpson <getify@gmail.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTi=tYS+RrZcsKED5ESfuGWpnPWyE8uZ1k-dur+onsjnAjw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com> wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > I like your suggestions, and I'd wish it would be that simple.. I'm going > to try and explain why it ain't. > > Determining if something is hardware accelerated or not might work in > browsers like WebKit, where you actually do have a "hard" switch between > GPU and CPU. On browsers such as IE9+ however, there wouldn't be a point, > as everything is drawn using Direct2D if possible. Note that Direct2D doesn't necessarily use hardware for everything either (nor should it). Many windows systems will get software rendering for *everything* in the UI. > It's also most often no > either/or, but rather "parts of it". Even in IE9, layouting (to my > knowledge) is still done in the CPU, and usually in other browsers, some > render paths disable GPU rendering as CPU rendering is actually more > effective sometimes. In an ideal world, the context switch wouldn't be > costly anymore and the devs wouldn't have to care. GPU/CPU should be an > internal engine decision. > > That being said, I'm a big fan of performance statistics. It would only be > really hard to implement, and browser vendors would (sorry - ) most likely > tell you how their browser performs in an ideal scenario, when no memory > and CPU cycles are consumed by other apps. I'm right now experimenting > with the concept of micro benchmarks that can run in a very limited > timeframe before or during any app launch. This might be a better > indicator. > > Am 13.06.11 15:36 schrieb "Kyle Simpson" unter <getify@gmail.com>: > > >At the TXJS conference over the weekend, several talks were dedicated to > >the > >topic of using CSS transitions and animations to replace the more clunky > >(and often less performant) JavaScript animation approaches of many > >"effects" done on web pages. > > > >But, noted was that not all systems benefit from this approach (namely, > >those which do not have the ability to hardware accelerate such things). > >The > >observation is that libraries like Scripty2 (and others) which try to > >detect > >which (best) animation method(s) to use could benefit from an interface > >in > >the content-JavaScript which allows them to detect such things: > > > > - are CSS transitions/animations hardware accelerated > > - what is the (avg/min/max) framerate of the transitions/animations > >on > >the page (the currently executing one and/or the most recently executed > >one) > > - the CPU usage stats for the current or previous animation(s) > > - etc > > > >The benefit for this type of information is that a library author can > >determine from such stats that a device will or won't (likely) benefit > >from > >offloading an animation to CSS as opposed to JavaScript (setInterval() or > >requestAnimationFrame, etc). > > > >I just wanted to ask if such data is already exposed, or planned to be > >exposed, in any interface, or if it's agreed that this type of data would > >be > >useful and relevant to expose to the JavaScript layer? > > > >--Kyle > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 15:46:56 UTC