Chrome Further Optimizes Its OpenH264 Encoder With More Assembly x86

[droidhacker]

Well, then tell web designers to go back to late 90's age of webpage resources, with only HTML/jpeg files and nothing more. Otherwise, your browser will need OS like levels of functionality. To use only what the OS provides to the browser, is inviting a compatibility nightmare to the developers deal with.

One can dream, can't they?
90's web browsers were just as functional as new ones, yet were actually.... FAST. Since they didn't have to deal with all the modern BULLSH**.

[devius]

Well, then tell web designers to go back to late 90's age of webpage resources, with only HTML/jpeg files and nothing more.

You mean website owners right? Because web designers don't usually have much control over those decisions.

[devius]

90's web browsers were just as functional as new ones

No they weren't... :\ That is, all modern browsers have the same capabilities (mostly) as older browsers, but newer ones have way more features and support a lot more standards.

yet were actually.... FAST.

Want to see fast? Here you go: https://varvy.com/pagespeed/wicked-fast.html

[schmidtbag]

I think it would be nice if there were 2 versions of Chrome - a barebones version containing everything you need in order to browse any website compliant with common industry standards, and then a full-featured version containing things you don't need but could come in handy, such as this encoder, webGL, PDF reader, etc. In other words, the leaner version of Chrome would not contain features that are missing in Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera, and/or Edge. Personally, I would still end up using the full-featured version, but it would be nice to see a stable, modern, and lean web browser. Firefox is nice but the lack of hardware acceleration or Pepper Flash have been my primary gripes with it.

[M@GOid]

You mean website owners right? Because web designers don't usually have much control over those decisions.

True, although not every owner knows what they want, and a lot of web designers will try to sell a more sophisticated (bloated) project to be able to charge more.

[AndyChow]

Ok, this sound good, but why is there a video encoder on a web browser? O_o

Good question. Maybe has something to do with "Chrome Remote Desktop"? Who knows really.

[Holograph]

This one isn't Michael's fault since it is a quote, however... 9ms is about 1.78x faster than 25ms, not 2.5x or 2.78x. It is 2.78x AS fast. Michael makes the same mistake sometimes :/ If you were an engineer this sort of mistake could cause some huge problems.

[efikkan]

Well this sounds good for video chat. I wish they prioritized optimizing the rest of the browser instead of adding (mostly) useless features.

Unfortunately both Chrome and Firefox are getting more bloated by the day, and are hogging my CPU just by loading a few webpages. Well most things don't get such huge gains from assembly as video encoding, but any native code will get huge performance gains by optimizing for cache and eliminating branching.

[ssokolow]

In other words, the leaner version of Chrome would not contain features that are missing in Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera, and/or Edge.

Would you strip features missing from ANY of those or ALL of those? ...because you'd get a surprisingly useless browser if you supported only what IE supported while most of the features you list (H.264 encoding, WebGL, built-in PDF reader, etc.) are present in Firefox and Opera too.

[schmidtbag]

Would you strip features missing from ANY of those or ALL of those? ...because you'd get a surprisingly useless browser if you supported only what IE supported while most of the features you list (H.264 encoding, WebGL, built-in PDF reader, etc.) are present in Firefox and Opera too.

Uh... since when does 99% of the userbase do video encoding in their web browser, or use 3D accelerated web pages? The vast majority of people (particularly those who don't use Chrome) have or prefer an external PDF reader. You are heavily exaggerating how useless a browser would be by removing these niche or redundant features.

Also, Firefox does not support built-in video encoding or PDF reader. As for Opera, the modern version is basically just a modified version of Chrome, so very often (but not always) whatever Chrome supports, Opera will eventually too. Anyway, that still doesn't detract from the fact that some of these features are unnecessary. Also, I just used those 3 as examples. There are others too.