Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 26th Jun 2010 10:48 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft have released IE9 Platform Preview 3, an application that gives developers access to the IE9 rendering engine (it's not a full browser). In this update they have added hardware accelerated HTML5 Video, Canvas, Fonts (using WOFF) and big improvements in JavaScript with ES5, DOM Traversal, L2 and L3 events and 83/100 Acid3 score. It sits between Firefox and Chrome 6 on JavaScript speed, but outperforms every browser in real tests.
Thread beginning with comment 431587
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Real tests
by Neolander on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Real tests"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Why should one need hardware acceleration in order to display text and pictures, which the current Web essentially is from a display point of view ? I know that current code is unoptimized, but I didn't know that it was *that* bad...

Edited 2010-06-26 13:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Real tests
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Real tests"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s not about _need_, it’s about availability. If a GPU is there and it’s “only 14x faster” than the CPU, then why not use it, for everything; even text—which is a whole lot more taxing than most give it credit.

Reply Parent Score: 9

v RE[4]: Real tests
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
RE[4]: Real tests
by Neolander on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Okay. It's just that when I hear about browser hardware acceleration, I see in the future Canvas-powered websites which use the GPU for stupid things, just like Flash currently does. I see laptop battery life continue to go down. I see a Vista effect where developers require ultra high power from the user's machine because their own machine is powerful. I see users which don't have fast 3D acceleration being penalized because they use open-source drivers or AMD's crappy proprietary drivers, or just because their old laptop includes a crappy intel GMA chipset.

If you make the feature available, you can safely assume that people will use it. Hardware acceleration in browsers is just like composited desktops : it's fine as long as it's optional and people can survive without it. Sadly, the web is not a desktop, where disabling compositing will just make windows look ugly. If developers require hardware acceleration and it's not available, the site won't work. That's the kind of things which I'm fearing.

Edited 2010-06-26 14:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Real tests
by zdzichu on Sat 26th Jun 2010 15:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Using GPU accel isn't straight performance win: http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2010/06/26/fun-with-benchmarks/

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Real tests
by rdean400 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 20:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Real tests"
rdean400 Member since:
2006-10-18

If you look at the HTML behind Web 2.0 applications, you'll find that they're not simple anymore, and the complexity can bog down a software-based renderer. Being able to offload the layout processing to the GPU helps a lot.

Reply Parent Score: 1