Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacRulez 
Do you really believe Flash-based content takes that much more power than HTML5-based content?
I was suckered into reading this by the catchy headline, but as others here have noted the trick is to load only plain HTML without any multimedia content. Once multimedia is added into the mix, the stats posted here make it pretty clear that Flash is no worse, and arguably a bit better, than HTML5-based implementations of the same content.
It'a all about the codec and wrapper implementations. Flash's implementation is very battery heavy, even the new GPU accelerated version is, because GPUs are eating current faster than CPUs. GPU video based Flash just gets a virtual pass because users can't see GPU usage and power draw like they can in CPU usage meters and graphics. But it's there because Flash naively updates everything all the time at the max rate it can.
H-264 based HTML5 video has a much lower power draw because one of the goals of the codec was to reduce the number of pixels changed per frame. Fewer pixels to compute, less work needed, less power drawn.
Other HTML content will depend on the programming. Naive javascript programmers who make greedy run loops will crank up CPU usage. Competent javascript programmers will run on a frame rate basis and give up the CPU when they don't need it. HTML5 framework tools will make this easier to use for everyone as the webworkers threading gets standardized. But poor old Flash will be stuck with creating compute greedy content no matter what because that's just how it's made under the hood.
