• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

IE11 vs FF35.0.1 Cr40.0.2214.115 4K Gpro

BarkingGhostar

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
So, I was trying to watch this video on YouTube at 1080P on my Samsung 1920x1200 monitor across the HP Stream Mini running Windows 8.1 with Bing. I turned off any add-on plugins and played the video back at 1080P.

Firefox wouldn't even be allowed any resolution option beyond 720P. WTH?
Chrome had all the higher resolutions, but stuttered on 1080P.
IE11 played the 1080 back smoothly and effortlessly.

Now, on my regular Haswell i7 PC under Windows 7 Pro ...

IE11 shows some slight stuttering
Chrome playback is smooth and effortless
FF won't play YouTube (v24 don't ask).

Now, I was aware that some sights like YouTube may employ a device identification to determine what video options might be allowed and not, but I was bewildered why the above observations took place.

Anyone?
 
IE 11 on Windows 7 does not support Media Source Extensions. I believe the 8.1 IE 11 would use the HTML 5 player while the Windows 7 example is using flash.

Guess Chrome doesn't work so well on Atom. Maybe it doesn't have hardware acceleration? I only use IE on my Atom tablet since it works well in metro mode (Chrome's metro interface is terrible, though haven't used it in a while).
 
I've noticed choppy YouTube video playback on Chrome sometimes (all on hardware that should not struggle to play 1080p video). I've also noticed that Chrome has a lot better options for playback than FireFox does (such as 60 fps videos). Google deliberately prevents certain features of YouTube from working on web browsers that aren't Chrome.
 
quikah said:
IE 11 on Windows 7 does not support Media Source Extensions. I believe the 8.1 IE 11 would use the HTML 5 player while the Windows 7 example is using flash.

Guess Chrome doesn't work so well on Atom. Maybe it doesn't have hardware acceleration? I only use IE on my Atom tablet since it works well in metro mode (Chrome's metro interface is terrible, though haven't used it in a while).
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. What does Atom have to do with this? I guess I'm ignorant of something. :|
 
quikah said:
Perhaps Chrome is disabling hardware acceleration on the tablet due to some bug. Type in chrome://gpu in chrome to see if it is.
Click to expand...
This isn't a tablet. This is an HP Stream mini using an Intel Celeron® 2957U with Intel HD Graphics.

BTW, I watched this video and went into about:config and toggled the Boolean setting for media.mediasoucre.enable setting (to true) and now in FF I have all of the video options.

Since I am making this change in FF I am not sure if this is a YT or FF issue. Seems asinine but the end result was 1080P played smoothly.
 
Well here is another interesting observation ...

I opened Task Manager and went to the Performance tab. I was shocked to see how much the CPU was being used when Chrome was playing that video at 1080P. Whether or not I had the hardware acceleration enabled or not it was using a ton of CPU compared to Firefox.

I find it odd that Chrome could not handle 1080P video better on this CPU for video considering the common aspect between Chrome and YT is GOOGLE. Instead, their competition (IE/FF) seem to be doing a much better job at it.
 
BarkingGhostar said:
Well here is another interesting observation ...

I opened Task Manager and went to the Performance tab. I was shocked to see how much the CPU was being used when Chrome was playing that video at 1080P. Whether or not I had the hardware acceleration enabled or not it was using a ton of CPU compared to Firefox.

I find it odd that Chrome could not handle 1080P video better on this CPU for video considering the common aspect between Chrome and YT is GOOGLE. Instead, their competition (IE/FF) seem to be doing a much better job at it.
Click to expand...

Could it have something to do with IE/FF being sent h264 by default which gets hardware accelerated decoding while Chrome will be sent VP9 by default (if the video has that option) which may not have hardware accelerated decoding? I'm not 100% sure about that though...
 
No idea. If there is a means to try alternative codec deliver I will give it a try if someone can provide the means on how to do so.
 
That Celeron with Intel HD graphics isn't enough to run video at 4K. That resolution does take a good bit of horsepower to run.

Other than that, I like that machine. Amazing how something so small (5x5x2 in) can do so much.
 
TheRyuu said:
Could it have something to do with IE/FF being sent h264 by default which gets hardware accelerated decoding while Chrome will be sent VP9 by default (if the video has that option) which may not have hardware accelerated decoding? I'm not 100% sure about that though...
Click to expand...

this is the reason, I just checked on my win 8 tablet (same behavior, IE smooth, chrome jerky). Chrome gets sent the vp9 encode while IE gets the h.264 one. No idea if you can force chrome to get that one.

You can right click the video and select "stats for nerds" to see this info.
 
ketchup79 said:
That Celeron with Intel HD graphics isn't enough to run video at 4K. That resolution does take a good bit of horsepower to run.

Other than that, I like that machine. Amazing how something so small (5x5x2 in) can do so much.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to output/view 4K. I was simply trying to get 1080P from YT. And like I said, it plays 1080P flawlessly in IE11 and FF35. That alone should speak of the HP Stream mini's ability. This isn't a hardware issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top