dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: FP10 CS4 released

  1. #1
    Senior Member Sietjp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    709

    FP10 CS4 released

    I'm surprised nobody posetd about it yet. Maybe because many of us are already playing with the FP10 since a long time.

    FP10 http://flashthusiast.com/2008/10/14/...yer-10-is-out/

    CS4 http://flashthusiast.com/2008/10/14/...flash-cs4-now/

    performances seem to be iproved according to Box2D fellows http://www.box2d.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1621

  2. #2
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    Debug and standalone versions of FP10 (40+ MB, 10.0.12.36):
    http://download.macromedia.com/pub/f...e1_flash10.zip

  3. #3
    Hype over content... Squize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Lost forever in a happy crowd...
    Posts
    5,928
    Oh cool, thanks for posting guys.
    ( After being burnt with the F9 beta's I've avoided F10 all together, time to get it now though ).

    Squize.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    133
    I have never tested the beta and am very pleased with gaining at least 20 fps without doing a thing

    I am curious of how fast in runs on my single core downstairs, will have to test this when I can.
    May 2009 - Working on Thorenzitha RPG - episode 7

  5. #5
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    So, time to dig up my old F9/AS3 speed test files. Run the same test swf in standalone version (non-debug) of both latest FP9 and new FP10. Swf is published as F9/AS3. WinXP.

    HitTests 100000 cycles:

    FP9 -
    hitTestObject: 334 ms
    hitTestPoint pixels: 453 ms
    hitTestPoint box: 381 ms
    calculate distance: 280 ms

    FP10 -
    hitTestObject: 155 ms - 2 x times faster
    hitTestPoint pixels: 186 ms - 2.4 times faster
    hitTestPoint box: 147 ms - 2.6 times faster
    calculate distance: 95 ms - 2.9 times faster

    FP10 looks to be at least 2 times faster.


    I thought maybe its the random and sqrt functions I used in hittest file, so I ran test with only calculating Math.random and Math.sqrt

    Math.random 1000000 cycles: FP9 - 104 ms FP10 - 102
    Math.sqrt 1000000 cycles: FP9 - 174 ms FP10 - 191

    Nope, not speed increase there.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  6. #6
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    Next test measured time to loop through all values in the multidimensional array 1, the flat array 2 and object.

    Array1: [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]
    Array2: [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
    Object3:{0_0:1, 0_1:1, 1_0:1...}

    Same "for" loops are used, elements are accessed like this:

    Array1[i][j]
    Array2[i*w+j] //w is the "width"
    Object3[i+"_"+j];

    Then it measured time to go through all elements using "for..in" loops.
    And finally it measured time to go through all elements using "for each in" loops.

    Times cycled: 100000

    Double for loops

    Two-dim Array1: 95 ms
    Flat Array2: 140 ms
    Object: 2478 ms

    for in loops

    Two-dim Array1: 1597 ms
    Flat Array2: 1070 ms
    Object: 393 ms

    for each in loops

    Two-dim Array1: 209 ms
    Flat Array2: 61 ms
    Object: 67 ms

    Posted only FP10 results FP9 performed practically same.

  7. #7
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    This test measures time used by bitmapData.copyPixels and bitmapData.fillRect:

    Times cycled: 1000000

    FP9 -
    CopyPixels: 1094 ms
    Fillrect: 167 ms

    FP10 -
    CopyPixels: 582 ms
    Fillrect: 248 ms

    While copyPixels has clearly improved with FP10, fillRect has slowed down. In FP9 the difference is nearly 10 times, in FP10 only 2 times.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  8. #8
    Senior Member hatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    480
    Cool, tonypa how does the new vector array compare againts looping through a normal array in FP10 or 9
    http://hatu.biz
    Portfolio & games

  9. #9
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    I dont have CS4 yet so I cant compare Vector with Array, I expect it to be faster but not like 10 times faster. If its 10-20% faster compared to Array, its still good.

    Plus, I think Vector is not supported in FP9 at all. You can only use it if you publish for FP10.

  10. #10
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    This test compared undefined, Number, uint and int type of variables in simple operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Times cycled: 10000000

    Well, Number and undefined performed same in both FP versions, so here are FP10 results only:

    Number +: 102 ms
    Number -: 101 ms
    Number *: 109 ms
    Number /: 242 ms
    Number total: 554 ms

    undefined +: 588 ms
    undefined -: 403 ms
    undefined *: 448 ms
    undefined /: 574 ms
    undefined total: 2013 ms

    However int was slightly and uint a lot faster in FP10:

    FP9 -
    int +: 61 ms
    int -: 59 ms
    int *: 72 ms
    int /: 407 ms
    int total: 599 ms

    uint +: 58 ms
    uint -: 58 ms
    uint *: 71 ms
    uint /: 674 ms
    uint total: 861 ms

    FP10 -
    int +: 45 ms
    int -: 44 ms
    int *: 62 ms
    int /: 408 ms
    int total: 559 ms

    uint +: 46 ms
    uint -: 44 ms
    uint *: 63 ms
    uint /: 424 ms
    uint total: 577 ms

  11. #11
    Yes we can tomsamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Team Titan Secret Lair
    Posts
    4,666
    nice comparisons tonypa. Did you also try math operations with bitwise operators?
    Overall iŽm glad that the release f10 player seems to be doing really well performancewise, its no giant leap but a nice slight improvement.
    What could become quite interesting is when one does math operations etc using pixel bender cause then they can run in an own thread, not take away from the performance of the rest of the app and in general run quite a bit nicer.
    I still think its ugly to have to use an own C syntax derivate for that stuff but yeah, could lead to cool stuff.

  12. #12
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    Which math operations you had in mind, like I said earlier, random and sqrt were at same speed and uint type performs better in FP10. These have all been swfs published as F9, now FP9 cant use Pixel Bender so how would you compare them?

  13. #13
    Yes we can tomsamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Team Titan Secret Lair
    Posts
    4,666
    regarding the math operations doing em with bitwise operators where possible has been faster for quite a while so i was curious if that is now even faster or still pretty much the same.
    regarding pixel bender: yeah, canŽt make a direct comparison there between f9 and f10 player, though yeah, weŽll surely see various things on that end that act quite nice for flash standards.

  14. #14
    formerly hooligan2001 :) .hooligan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    405
    Nice!

    Is it still only that small list of video cards supported by the hardware acceleration?

  15. #15
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    This test is perhaps more interesting for games. Here we move number of clips on stage for 100 enterFrame steps and measure total time spent. First we use separate movie clips with vector rectangle, then separate clips with bitmap graphic and finally one bitmap with copyPixels:

    1000 Clips / fps set to 50

    FP9 -
    Vector graphics: 7873 ms / 13 fps
    Bitmap graphics: 2518 ms / 40 fps
    One bitmap with copyPixels: 2625 ms / 38 fps

    FP10 -
    Vector graphics: 8018 ms / 12 fps
    Bitmap graphics: 2383 ms / 42 fps
    One bitmap with copyPixels: 2310 ms / 43 fps

    FP10 performs even worse with vector graphics, bitmaps are drawn faster. Not sure why FP9 is faster with separate bitmap clips.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  16. #16
    Senior Member Ray Beez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    2,796
    Maybe I didn't read the above correctly, but is there any benefit to F8 media played in FP10?

  17. #17
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    I have not done speed tests of AS1/2 movies with FP10. There was no mentioning about AVM1 being rewritten so I assumed its exactly same as in FP9.

  18. #18
    Senior Member lapo73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    italy
    Posts
    395
    Here are some more interesting numbers from an Ars Technica article -> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html

    The article analyzes MacOS and Linux performance increase in detail but there are also Windows benchmarks... the performance gap between the Windows version of the FP and the "rest of the world" remains almost unchanged.

    cheers,

    Lapo
    www.gotoandplay.it
    Flash game developers community
    www.smartfoxserver.com
    Multiplayer Flash Server

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center