Youtube(Flash) HD Video benchmarks

There has been lots of talk lately about the performance or lack of in Youtube HD videos. I have a laptop that I was able to easily swap out cpu's and overclock so I took the time to run a few tests to shed some light on which cpu's can and can't play youtube HD videos. Of course this can't be totally recreatable but it can give others a rough guideline.

System Setup;

Asus Z62F
Core Duo T2250 (1.73ghz 2MB 533FSB)
2x512MB PC-5200 DDR2
100GB Fujisu 4200RPM HDD
Intel GMA 950

Browser Internet Explorer 8
Adobe Flash 10 Hardware acceleration was enabled, disabling it didn't do anything.

Youtube HD "Asteroid Impact" LINK

Using FSB I was able to change the clockspeed at will, although I have never was able to disable speedstep (other than the cpu being stuck at the lowest multiplier)

I ran the tests @ 3 different speeds:

2.25ghz

19%

1.73ghz

44%

1.3ghz

69%

Here's what I found interesting, in the first video the cpu is overclocked to 2.25ghz almost a T2700, now whats odd is at this speed during the less intense scenes the speedstep was actually kicking in everyonce in a while, resulting in the cpu speed being 1054mhz, then kicking back up to 2.25ghz. Also take note that for the most part only 1 cpu core is being used, sometimes when the speed went down to 1054mhz the 2nd core would activate but then the clockspeed would go back up to 2.25ghz and use only the one core. At this speed everything was silky smooth and no problems.

The 2nd video was done at stock speeds 1.73ghz, speedstep never kicked in and the cpu was constant at 1.73ghz, but look at the cpu graph, as the cpu was being taxed more as a result of the slower clockspeed it is using both cores to balance out the load and this was throughout the whole video.

The 3rd video was done at the slowest speed I could get the video to run perfectly smooth. Once again no speedstep throttling here, and both cores being utilized.

The next videos are the same config above however I swapped out the cpu to a Celeron M 420 1.6ghz 1MB 533fsb

1.73ghz

88%

In the first video I clocked the 420 at the same speed as the core duo t2250, the video was not watchable at this speed it was stuttering bad and wasn't a very good experience.

2.1ghz

88%

What was odd about about this was that cpu usage roughly stayed the same despite the roughly 300mhz OC, video was smoother but not even close to being watchable still lots of stuttering.

The next videos are the same config above however I swapped out the cpu to a Core Solo T1500 1.5ghz 2MB 667FSB

1.57ghz

88%

This video was also unwatchable, much like the celeron m 420 with really no dicernable difference, cpu usage was about the same as well.

900mhz

100%

This setup at the speed of of 900mhz was not watchable at all it stuttered all the time and was a complete sideshow, I know Igrim used a 800mhz Core 2 Solo, and since they are slightly faster than the core duo's at the same speed 900mhz was used, its a moot point though, video was totally unwatchable at 900mhz.


I Also remembered the actual computer i'm posting from is almost the same as my laptop. I can't however get fsb to work on its so I only tested at the stock speed.

Msi Itx Board
Core 2 Duo T5200 1.6ghz 2mb 533fsb
I945GM Chipset
1x1GB PC-6400 DDR2

1.6ghz

38%

This video was totally smooth no problems at all cpu usage was a bit on the high side but both cores were being used.

Cliff Notes: Speed = CPU Usage = Playable

Core Duo T2250
2.25ghz = 19% = Playable 100%
1.73ghz = 44% = Playable 100%
1.3ghz = 68% = Playable 100%

Celeron M 420
2.1ghz = 88% = Not watchable, Stuttering
1.73ghz = 88% = Not Watchable, Stuttering

Core Solo T1500
1.57ghz = 88% = Not Watchable, Stuttering
900mhz = 100% = Not Watchable, Slideshow

Core 2 Duo T5200
1.6ghz = 38% = Playable 100%

So what can we conclude, not a whole lot mainly because there are so many configurations with regards to cpu's and web browsers, but I can safely say that 1.3ghz core duo under windows xp is the absolute lowest you can go in terms of YouTube HD videos you maybe be able to get by with a little less if you have a C2D, its also nice to see that they are somewhat multithreaded, but i'm sure that has nothing to do with flash itself. Also the single core cpu's really seem to struggle with the HD videos, cache and clock speed don't seem to matter that much with the single cores, they simple don't have enough juice to run them smoothly.

I don't have any Atom cpu's to test with however I can safely say in my experience that an 800mhz Core 2 Solo can't play youtube HD videos. I don't hate the Atom cpu's as i've had a Atom 330 Desktop board in the past as will as an N270 in my MSI Wind, and the N270+ 9300M in my N10J great cpu's and since flash is cpu based of course they aren't going to play videos in HD(Flash).


I encourage other if they have the time to reply with their experiences, make sure to include :

CPU (FSB Cache ect)
Ram
Chipset
GPU
CPU usaage via taskmanager
Browser
OS
CPU usaage via taskmanager

Also make sure you use the same YT Link.

I will update this thread once other members post.

 

Browser: Internet Explorer
OS: Windows 7

AMD Phenom X4 9550
@ 800mhz
Totally Smooth
@1600mhz
Totally Smooth
@1.1ghz
Totally smooth
@2.2ghz
Totally Smooth

Acer Aspire One netbook with 1GB of ram and intel atom platform
@800mhz
Unwatchable, 2-3frames per second
@1600mhz
Still unwatchable, 5-8 frames per second
@1.8ghz still unwatchable 10-15fps

Acer aspire one netbook
with internet explorer 8 on vimeo.com hd channels
@800mhz 15-20FPS
@1.6ghz 25-30FPS, totally watchable and very smooth

 

Very interesting. You will need a quite good processor if you want to watch YouTube videos in HD.

 

You have like 46 to 48 processes running. You could try to narrow it down to like 22 to 26 (almost half) and you may actually gain some speed. Try shutting down some processes and disable some services that you think you can do without.

 

No need.

Most processes are idle, also there is little point in finding that CPU X will play a video without a useable OS.

 

They might be idle but they do eat up memory. And if video memory is shared that counts. Assuming they're idle...

 

Well, not necessarily if you use Vista.

 

I'd say it depends more on the video card/chip rather than cpu, minimize the YouTube HD video and the cpu usage goes down to like 6-8%. Go fullscreen and the fps will drop, cpu usage most likely goes up. My opinion... it's all flash player's fault. There are other players that'll play the same video file using just half the resources.

 

I second this. While I'm curious, I hypothesis that 20 less processes will not add 20 fps.

At most, it adds maybe 2 fps in games....

 

As for the processes running in the background, in my case they are using next to no cpu time at all. Unless you've got a process using around 15-20% it's not going to have an impact on the video playback.