3
What is lighter on resources in chrome FLASH or HTML5 video player?
I'm asking both in general and specifically about youtube.
I tend to have many youtube video windows open, so I'd like to know which one to choose.
Mikey
Posted 2014-10-28T10:25:36.983
Reputation: 1 560
2
There is no single answer to this question. HTML5 is supposed to be more efficient and lighter in terms of resources. But the actual performance and resource consumption is highly dependant on the hardware, software and the combination of both. Some browsers are reported to be more efficient at rendering flash than HTML5. Results also vary between different platforms.
Here is a list of factors that can have effect:
I would recommend you to run your own benchmark test. Use the program that monitors system resources over time and launch the set of youtube videos using flash. Then repeat the same test with HTML5. Try performing the test with different amount of videos (2,4,8,16,32?). It would be nice to see the results along with your HW/SW specs.
For additional reading:
Art Gertner
Posted 2014-10-28T10:25:36.983
Reputation: 6 417
1damn and I thought my question would have a simple answer ) – Mikey – 2014-10-28T16:32:29.547
I found a benchmark to compare. The article is pretty old, so I rerun tests on my system (Kubuntu-x86-64 14.04.03, Google Chrome), and I can say — yes, now html5 is faster than flash.
– Hi-Angel – 2016-01-12T21:59:48.453
HTML5 video is more efficient because it's pure video, while Flash-based players often embed a lot of unnecessary features (ads, annotations, etc)... – None – 2014-10-28T13:08:14.510