The web at maximum FPS: How WebRender gets rid of jank

Re:The web at maximum FPS: How WebRender gets rid of jank by Ajedi32 on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @03:43PM (#15444766)

There's some interesting discussion about this very topic happening on /r/rust right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/75hzk5/the_whole_web_...

A particularly relevant bit:

> For the case where the CPU would have painted a single pixel, WR will certainly use a bit more power than CPU rendering with a compositor. For the case where a large portion of the screen changes, CPU renderers might miss their frame budget spending > 16ms drawing a frame, where WR will complete that task in 4ms.

> We might light up part of a GPU for longer than compositing would have, but we just saved >12ms of CPU compute. The power hypothesis is that the saved CPU compute consumes more power budget than the extra GPU compute we added. If there was no further JS code to run (app is idle) then we can go back to idle state after 4ms, instead of after 16+ms.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The web at maximum FPS: How WebRender gets rid of jank by benjaminjackman on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @08:05AM (#15449029)

Hmm that sounds like outside of missed frames or otherwise busy sites consistently using more than 25% of the frame budget more power will be required by the new approach. Isn’t that going to be the most common case?

[ Parent | on HN ]