# FLASH performance boost?



## hoax32 (Dec 25, 2012)

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 (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

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.



1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Dec 25, 2012)

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


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Dec 25, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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
> ...




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


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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.



1nf3rn0x said:


> Run it at atleast 1024x768.



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


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Dec 25, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2012)

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 :shadedshu
FAIL me keeping the camera charged


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Dec 25, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 25, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2012)

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 (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 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.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 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.



there seems to be a Rev1 and a Rev2 board for the G585 (google)
When I put in 2x2GB DDR3 same chip multiple programs report dual chanel and not a single one does not.
Putting in 2 different dimms doesn't give me that.
hmmmm

And as for gaming I think I have proven that it handels more or less modern games even on max --- NOW don't get me wrong here!
I will never see this thing running BF above 1024x768 xD but if it runns even that smooth on low then I don't see a reason why not enjoy some pixelated Deadspace 2 on it from time to time.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> When I put in 2x2GB DDR3 same chip multiple programs report dual chanel and not a single one does not.



Then those "multiple programs" are wrong, because Brazos only sports a single channel. This is the same for all Brazos based APUs.

Try CPU-Z, and I'm willing to bet it will say single channel. Throw a screenshot up when you try it as well.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Then those "multiple programs" are wrong, because Brazos only sports a single channel. This is the same for all Brazos based APUs.
> 
> Try CPU-Z, and I'm willing to bet it will say single channel. Throw a screenshot up when you try it as well.



like I sayed - I only get this mode with 2x2GB reported!
2 different 4GB sticks won't do it - has to be the same size and clock.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> as I sayed - I only get this mode with 2x2GB reported!
> 2 different 4GB sticks won't do it - has to be the same size and clock.
> 
> http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5826/g585ram.jpg



That's unusual that it's reporting that way. I suspect CPU-Z might not have been updated to properly identify it on Brazos 2.0. Either way, yeah, it's going to work but it's really not running dual channel. It's important to realize that even if it is misreporting. The biggest benefit you'll get is the larger amount of memory (vram and system memory are shared,) and the slightly faster clock (assuming same timings.)


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's unusual that it's reporting that way. I suspect CPU-Z might not have been updated to properly identify it on Brazos 2.0. Either way, yeah, it's going to work but it's really not running dual channel. It's important to realize that even if it is misreporting. The biggest benefit you'll get is the larger amount of memory and the slightly faster clock (assuming same timings.)



hmmm kk :/
But when I have 2x2GB vs 1x4GB I get about %4 higher troughput in RAM benchmark tests.
Wird.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> But when I have 2x2GB vs 1x4GB I get about %4 higher troughput in RAM benchmark tests.



That's within error, I would call that the same. Dual-channel should give you a lot more than just 4% if it really had 2 channels.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's within error, I would call that the same. Dual-channel should give you a lot more than just 4% if it really had 2 channels.



Hmmm ok. 
well - back to topic  - any tweaks for faster flash?


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> Hmmm ok.
> well - back to topic  - any tweaks for faster flash?



Not really but I also don't quite understand why it would be going slow to begin with (unless you're running it full screen @ 1080p), if it's going really slow it could be a problem with GPU accelerated flash video. Are you running the latest catalyst drivers or tried disabling GPU accelerated flash (or enabling it if it is disabled)?

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/891337


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Not really but I also don't quite understand why it would be going slow to begin with (unless you're running it full screen @ 1080p), if it's going really slow it could be a problem with GPU accelerated flash video. Are you running the latest catalyst drivers or tried disabling GPU accelerated flash (or enabling it if it is disabled)?
> 
> http://forums.adobe.com/thread/891337



yep!
tryed all!
And CPU also only capps at %80.
It's NOT SLOW but it could be better!
I want the CPU to put %100 into flash but it's only 70-%80 and I get poor 20 FPS on animations.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> I want the CPU to put 0 into flash but it's only 70-€ and I get poor 20 FPS on animations.



Not all software will use 100% of your CPU, even more so when you start using more than 1 core. That sounds about right to me. I doubt you'll get that to go much faster.

If this is @ 1080p, I would try dropping down to 720P, I bet you that it will run better, albeit with jagged edges on a 1080P display, but you know all about that running games at low graphics.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Not all software will use 100% of your CPU, even more so when you start using more than 1 core. That sounds about right to me. I doubt you'll get that to go much faster.
> 
> If this is @ 1080p, I would try dropping down to 720P, I bet you that it will run better, albeit with jagged edges on a 1080P display, but you know all about that running games at low graphics.



1080p h.264 video plays perfect with only %50 cpu load
im talking about NON VIDEO flash 
.swf files for example - why wont the cpu try HARDER!!??? xD
It's like a truck that has 300HP but will only go 250HP.
CPU has %20 - %30 breathing space and I wanna find a way of pushing it higher - setting the process priority to real time got me to %85.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> 1080p h.264 video plays perfect with only %50 cpu load
> im talking about NON VIDEO flash
> .swf files for example - why wont the cpu try HARDER!!??? xD
> It's like a truck that has 300HP but will only go 250HP.
> CPU has %20 - %30 breathing space and I wanna find a way of pushing it higher - setting the process priority to real time got me to %85.



Right, video is GPU accelerated. Vector animation IS NOT and relies on the CPU to do those vector calculations and at higher resolutions it hits the CPU harder. Just try lowing the resolution to see if it makes a difference. As a programmer I can tell you that when you start using multiple threads you have to lock data and there are only certain segments of code that can be made to run in parallel so it's very unlikely that it will hit 100% because that isn't how the application was programmed. This isn't a car where you give it throttle and it goes, it's much more complex than that and it's very important to realize that.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Right, video is GPU accelerated. Vector animation IS NOT and relies on the CPU to do those vector calculations and at higher resolutions it hits the CPU harder. Just try lowing the resolution to see if it makes a difference.



would be nice if Adobe could make that GPU accelerated somehow - but im asking for too much.
Well thank you for all the info 
Seems like I have to tweak the CPU a little with Brazostweker!
Thanks again!
If any1 has to add feel free !!!


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> would be nice if Adobe could make that GPU accelerated somehow - but im asking for too much.
> Well thank you for all the info
> Seems like I have to tweak the CPU a little with Brazostweker!
> Thanks again!
> If any1 has to add feel free !!!



I don't think that you're realizing that this is simply a CPU or memory bandwidth bottleneck (or both), it's not much more complex than that. You didn't get a super fast CPU and it's going to struggle with a lot of things. Just keep that in mind.

Good luck.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

dont think its the ram!
my core 2 duo with 533mhz single chanel handles it just fine - pritty sure it's the cpu but I don't even wanna imagine how a atom would run this thing haha


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

hoax32 said:


> dont think its the ram!


I agree, but it's always a consideration.


hoax32 said:


> my core 2 duo with 533mhz single chanel handles it just fine


C2Ds aren't that slow, in fact it is most likely faster.


hoax32 said:


> pritty sure it's the cpu but I don't even wanna imagine how a atom would run this thing haha


Hah! Yeah, certainly not better but I wouldn't imagine that it would be that much less if it isn't more (which I doubt it is). Newer atoms aren't that bad in comparison if you don't consider the iGPU.


----------



## hoax32 (Dec 26, 2012)

Yeah core 2 duos are much faster!
I would say the E2-1800 is more like Core Duo speed or a AMD Turion64 X2 speed.
I can tell you that a N270 it slower than a pentium 3 @ 1.4GHz!
Youtube only runs @240p on that thing.


----------

