FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM DRIVERS
FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM UPDATE
FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM DRIVER

Chrome's Flash plug-in is built in, as opposed to external. Chrome may have a newer Flash version than what Firefox is using. For some, like me, who rarely ever reboot, I never notice updates until then.

FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM UPDATE

It's updater is stupid, always waits for a reboot before telling you an update is available. and of course make SURE you have the latest version of Flash installed. Meaning it is able to better divert the CPU load onto multiple threads. It is also possible the CPU consumption is equal, but better spread out in Chrome. If it is *less*, then you know Chrome was able to offload more to your GPU, or has other optimizations to reduce CPU utilization for that situation. I'd be curious to hear the CPU utilization under Chrome. So, to be sure, just FWIW, that is the bottleneck and cause of the performance difference. Any time you see 25% utilization on a quad core system, you known that it is a single thread that is consuming every CPU cycle it can get, meaning that it needs more. and as far as *what* the bottleneck *is*, it is definitely your CPU. Similarly, the 'HyperThreaded core avoidance' might help, if it is an Intel HyperThreaded CPU. However, the performance gain from such an action would seem marginal at best, unless the scheduler is just really screwing up and causing a lot of core thrashing. If you set it to a HyperThreaded core, then you will reduce performance substantially. I'm not sure which processor your have, so would recommend picking cores 0 or 2, in case it is HyperThreaded. Thus, limiting the plugin-container.exe process to a single core *might* improve performance.

Every time this thread gets swapped to a different core, it takes a performance hit. Why? At 25% CPU consumption on a quad core system, that means it has a single CPU bound (CPU hungry) thread that is eating up every cycle it can get. The *one* other thing you could try is limiting the CPU affinity of plugin-container.exe to a single core. While it sounds like Flash is more the issue, I don't know the entirety of the situation (the site visited, etc.). They have really been working hard in the area of better GPU acceleration.

It should be noted that Chrome might actually make better use of your GPU, and that *may* be the difference in performance. I pretty much gave my opinion above, here's my last additions. Ok, just tested on a you-tub vid, my CPU % goes from 8 - 20% and avg around 12%, this is on XP SP3 Intel core duel 2.13 ghz for reference. On CPU % I don't see how PL would affect this, I never really checked CPU % while viewing movies. You can also try in the vidio option too. I run HW acceleration off and vids are silky smooth. I would still give it a try might be a issue with how ATI hardware acceleration is coded.

Well, I would give it a try, I have no stuttering in FF (I use Palemoon which is optimized based on FF ). Its clearly browser based problem, and i do like to know whats Jeremy's opinion of it. So can Jeremy disassemble this friggin plugin-container.exe(and processes within), because with PL, stuttering is still there.

FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM DRIVERS

So nothing to do with ati drivers installed. With youtube i have constant 1-2 sec lag with the videos or anything flash based websites.Īnd also, my connection is 10/10mbit, which is, suitable enough.īut when im using chrome, everything is so silky smooth with PL. Why do i have to disable hw acceleration? If i disable it, whole rendering is done by the CPU then? I do not use any WebGL based websites. Win XP 3 with latest flash etc installed.

FIREFOX ADOBE PLUGIN PREOBLEM DRIVER

I have fairly ATI driver installed, about 2 month old.

Firefox adobe plugin preoblem