[Tee]

Flash is notorious for pegging the CPU on Macs.
Just watching a basic YouTube clip or even viewing a page with some Flash ads can take the CPU to 100%.

I'm wondering how Flash performs CPU wise on the i7 iMacs.

Personal experiences??

[Big Mac]

I haven't heard much since the initial reports of performance problems.

[P]

Just fine here (Core i7 iMac). I try my best to avoid Flash, but I just fired up a page with 3 Youtube videos just to test it, and they all ran fine when running simultaneously.

As for Flash ads: ClickToFlash if you're using Safari, and Flashblock or NoScript if you're using Firefox. Makes every Flash animation opt-in, and ClickToFlash also tries to redirect video from certain sites like Youtube to Quicktime (which is why I had to make the test above with Firefox, to really use Flash).

[Tee]

P, did you happen to have Activity Monitor open while you were watching the YouTube clips?
I'd be interested to know what the CPU% was for the Flash process + Safari processes.

[P]

Did it now with 5 videos running. Stayed at 80% after the peak at the startup (which was around 95%), but remember that that is the percentage of one processor, and this things has 4 real cores and 4 virtual cores. When it's pegged, it's at 800%.

[Tee]

Interesting.
Not bad, but still seems a bit high.
Flash seems to perform much better on even low end PC's than on high end Macs...

[Spheric Harlot]

5 Flash videos running at 10% of the i7's maximum performance seems perfectly fine to me.

[Simon]

Tee is absolutely right. A cheap low-end PC plays Flash better than the most expensive iMac today. Adobe's Mac implementation of Flash is a disgrace. Personally, I simply have stopped using it and only make an exception when there is absolutely no other way to get something done.

Download ClickToFlash for Mac - WebKit plug-in prevents automatic loading of Adobe Flash content. MacUpdate Mac Software Downloads

[Spheric Harlot]

Oh, I agree, and my computing life has got *much* less strenuous since I've installed ClicktoFlash.

But the i7 iMac is fast enough that it no longer really matters that Adobe can't get their shit together.

[Simon]

It really does matter because only a small share of Mac users want to have to spend $2200 just to get Flash to work decently. An experience that costs about $500 with Dell. The majority of 13" buyers will still be stuck with sizzling hot MacBooks just because two flash ads are running somewhere on that web page they're reading.

[EndlessMac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

But the i7 iMac is fast enough that it no longer really matters that Adobe can't get their shit together.

That screws over anyone who doesn't have an i7 which means a lot of Mac users. Not everyone is going to upgrade to an i7 since most people don't buy the higher end Macs so this will affect a lot of people.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm the last person to argue against putting Adobe up against the nearest available wall.

[P]

Tests of the betas of Flash 10.1 on Mac report significantly improved performance, even if they still won't use the GPU like they do on windows. Will believe it when I see it.

[ajprice]

Here I am with an Intel GMA MacBook, the fans kick in every time I play a Facebook game like Farkle or something. Then I look at new MacBooks and Mac minis and think that apart from the 9700 graphics, its still a Core2Duo, but 2.5GHz instead of the 2.16GHz I've got, not much of an upgrade .

[Simon]

Flash on the Mac will cease being an issue once every $899 MB can play Flash using up as little resources as a $500 Dell. For many years Adobe has consistently overpromised and underdelivered when it comes to the Mac versions of their software. Flash is an excellent example.

And the Mac community would better not stop complaining to Adobe about it until they finally manage to deliver solid and efficient performance on the Mac (and of course after it's been verified by actual users).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

Here I am with an Intel GMA MacBook, the fans kick in every time I play a Facebook game like Farkle or something. Then I look at new MacBooks and Mac minis and think that apart from the 9700 graphics, its still a Core2Duo, but 2.5GHz instead of the 2.16GHz I've got, not much of an upgrade .

It is a substantial upgrade, but not measured in clock speed.

The upgrade people got when they went from the G4 to C(2)D was huge. Unfortunately you can't expect such leaps every other year.

The upgrades people buy now are IMHO more about features than about raw CPU performance. The latter has certainly improved as well (even at the same clock), but for most consumers I believe it's nowhere near as significant as things like 7 hour battery life, large multitouch trackpads, or sturdy UB enclosures.