Gemini000 wrote:

Hardware acceleration might be disabled in your browser or Flash settings. You're GOING to need that to handle 1080p @ 60 FPS. Using different browsers might help too. It's also possible your graphics hardware configuration isn't set for optimal performance. It's also possible your hard drive sucks and can't keep up with the amount of I/O necessary to both receive all of that data and transmit it to the GPU simultaneously, in which case, if you have enough RAM, you should disable the browser disk cache. (Only really a good option if you're using a 64-bit browser.)

Believe me, I'm very particular about enabling hardware acceleration (Even going as far as hacking DLLs to get Canvas Acceleration to work in Chrome on WinXP)... So far I've tried in Chrome. Maybe I ought to try in Firefox.

The video I was playing was this one in particular:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZRJoZdM84

Can you give this a shot and select "Stats For Nerds" in the Right-Click Context menu to see if you're dropping any frames?

The thing is, I tried this video on an old Phenom with integrated graphics and it played smoothly in Chrome without issue.

My HDD is a recent model and a very good performer (1TB, 7200RPM, 64MB Cache).

YouTube prefers WebM/VP9 now, that means no hardware acceleration. AMD and nVidia still only care for H.264 and H.265.

Gemini is right about the fact that hardware acceleration (I think it's called WebGL acceleration in Chrome) should still help WebM/VP9 performance eventhough it's not natively decoded by the GPU. Heck, I remember Winamp channels back in the day that used VP6 and had an incredibly good picture for the bitrate.

mockingbird wrote:

Believe me, I'm very particular about enabling hardware acceleration (Even going as far as hacking DLLs to get Canvas Accelerati […]
Show full quote

Believe me, I'm very particular about enabling hardware acceleration (Even going as far as hacking DLLs to get Canvas Acceleration to work in Chrome on WinXP)... So far I've tried in Chrome. Maybe I ought to try in Firefox.

The video I was playing was this one in particular:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZRJoZdM84

Can you give this a shot and select "Stats For Nerds" in the Right-Click Context menu to see if you're dropping any frames?

The thing is, I tried this video on an old Phenom with integrated graphics and it played smoothly in Chrome without issue.

My HDD is a recent model and a very good performer (1TB, 7200RPM, 64MB Cache).

Those HDD stats don't really mean anything about performance, contrary to anything you may've heard. I believe WD Green drives have similar physical specs to WD Black drives yet the Greens are painfully slow for access speeds and have terrible longevity, whereas Black drives have really good access speeds and are the only drives in the industry (which I know of anyways) backed by five-year warranties, since they last so much better.

That said, I had zero frames dropped in IE with that video, though I'm not on an internet connection strong enough to downstream 1080p content so I had to let it buffer for a little before I could test. For some reason, those frame stats don't show up in IE but I could just eyeball it and know it was playing smooth and that the odd moments where it did stutter seemed linked to the captured gameplay itself.

My version of Firefox really needs to be updated at some point though as it doesn't trigger the HTML5 player on YouTube, but it gave me a chance to notice that the YouTube Flash player DOES NOT SUPPORT 60 FPS! If you select what you know is a 60 FPS stream using the Flash player, every other frame is dropped, which ended up giving me 30 FPS.

Chrome and I don't get along. At all. I've tried it three times in the past on three different versions of Windows and crashed it within a minute all three times before even loading a single web page. It's strange that for every bunch of people who have zero issues with Chrome and praise the heck out of it, there's one person (like myself) who can't even get the thing working properly, even though it should be a no-brainer. :P

I can't seem to get more than ~40fps (with lots of dropped frames) on both Firefox and IE, but downloading the videos and playing them locally works fine. I find it a bit hard to believe that my computer (AMD FX-8120, 8GB DDR3-1600, GTX550Ti, SATA3 SSD) isn't fast enough for 60fps YouTube playback, but given how bloated it has become I don't really expect much.

Gemini000 wrote:

Those HDD stats don't really mean anything about performance, contrary to anything you may've heard. I believe WD Green drives have similar physical specs to WD Black drives yet the Greens are painfully slow for access speeds and have terrible longevity, whereas Black drives have really good access speeds and are the only drives in the industry (which I know of anyways) backed by five-year warranties, since they last so much better.

I'm not sure Green drives have terrible performance per se, I've just been staying away from them because of the head parking "feature" which cuts their lifetime drastically. My HDD is by no means the leader of the pack, but it's no slouch either. I doubt it's the weak link in the chain.

That said, I had zero frames dropped in IE with that video, though I'm not on an internet connection strong enough to downstream 1080p content so I had to let it buffer for a little before I could test. For some reason, those frame stats don't show up in IE but I could just eyeball it and know it was playing smooth and that the odd moments where it did stutter seemed linked to the captured gameplay itself.

IE doesn't count. It doesn't support VP9, so the video falls back to IE's H.264, which is only 720p and not 60fps.

My version of Firefox really needs to be updated at some point though as it doesn't trigger the HTML5 player on YouTube, but it gave me a chance to notice that the YouTube Flash player DOES NOT SUPPORT 60 FPS! If you select what you know is a 60 FPS stream using the Flash player, every other frame is dropped, which ended up giving me 30 FPS.

If you're going to update Firefox, I highly reccomend you become acquainted with the Classic Theme Restorer beforehand, because the new Firefox interface is drastically different from the old one.

Chrome and I don't get along. At all. I've tried it three times in the past on three different versions of Windows and crashed it within a minute all three times before even loading a single web page. It's strange that for every bunch of people who have zero issues with Chrome and praise the heck out of it, there's one person (like myself) who can't even get the thing working properly, even though it should be a no-brainer. 😜

Chrome isn't a no brainer considering all the options available in chrome://flags. Chrome is probably the most advanced and up-to-date browser of all. The progress of the development is easily always eons ahead of the competition. Having said that, I don't like it either. I'd rather use Firefox and suffer the performance penalty, because I'm comfortable wth the interface. On my laptop I use IE11 for whatever reason.

133MHz wrote:

I can't seem to get more than ~40fps (with lots of dropped frames) on both Firefox and IE, but downloading the videos and playing them locally works fine. I find it a bit hard to believe that my computer (AMD FX-8120, 8GB DDR3-1600, GTX550Ti, SATA3 SSD) isn't fast enough for 60fps YouTube playback, but given how bloated it has become I don't really expect much.

Playing them locally with VLC and such isn't the same as playing them in your browser. The browser has to contend with a ton more overhead. I'm surprised your system couldn't handle it. What surprises me is that I played the video on an older Phenom machine with a Radeon 5450, and it ran smooth as butter. Can you try in Chrome or Chromium and see if you get an improvement?

mockingbird wrote:

IE doesn't count. It doesn't support VP9, so the video falls back to IE's H.264, which is only 720p and not 60fps.

Uhh... you sir are extremely wrong about that. I have manually confirmed with external tools that I am getting 60 FPS and I am getting 1080p footage. I even went so far as to examine screen-capture pixels and compared to YouTube's 720p conversion. It is NOT down-converting the 1080p footage in any way under IE.

I should point out though, I'm on Windows 8.1 Pro which means I'm using IE11. Only Windows 7 and later support it.

I stand corrected:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/bg … v=vs.85%29.aspx

"IE11 introduces support for HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). EME extends the video and audio elements to enable Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected content without using plug-ins. EME is supported in IE11 and Windows Store apps using JavaScript using Windows 8.1.

Important This feature is not supported in IE11 on Windows 7 or Windows Phone 8.1."

Sneaky Microsoft and their planned obsolescence.

I get no dropped frames on Chrome with this system:

Phenom II x6 1090T
4GB RAM
Radeon 7950 Boost
Win 8.1 64bit

Here is my Quake 2 60 fps video captured on a Voodoo 3 3500.

http://youtu.be/4jm5dOUOUv0

Works fine on Chrome and IE on a Windows 8.1 machine with an i5 and Radeon 6770.

No VP9 in that Quake 2 video. I guess it needs more views to be converted.

BTW, no music? That's blasphemy! 😉

No dropped frames on:

i5-3470 @3.2GHz
16 GB RAM
EVGA GTX660 SC
Windows 7 64bit
Chrome Version 39.0.2171.71 m

I've posted some videos on VengefulChip that have animations from the games that the soundtracks originate from and I encoded them with their original framerates. Here's an example: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cezJNg4plbA, it was recorded through WinUAE, the game is PAL so it has 50fps, and I cropped, joined the different parts of the intro and resized with AviSynth+VirtualDub.
I can't see more than 25fps (and VLC reports it as such) so I don't know if it was encoded at 60/50fps on YT's side. Probably because VLC doesn't yet fully support YouTube's DASH, and I use it to watch videos as I hate Adobe Flash with a passion (wish it were replaced already with HTML5 or a FOSS alternative). So you guys will have to let me know if you notice anything.

There are small stutters to be seen. I guess running the NTSC version would make more sense for 60 fps videos.

Another question for all of you:

If you had the choice between watching game play footage at 1024 x 768 60 Hz compared to higher resolution such as 1600 x 1200 30 Hz, which would you prefer?

Maybe those are dropped frames? Try this one: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8bJIJwimSbk
To answer your question, I would choose the former.

Hard to say because there is no scene that makes it easy to spot anything. A scrolling landscape for example works well. But it's definitely an improvement over the standard 30 fps.

I got a few on my channel, just search for 60 fps.

You can see the actual framerate of the video in "Stats for nerds". I always get >=30fps as I use Firefox, so I couldn't tell. Keepvid also doesn't seem to give links to 60fps videos otherwise I would've known by now.

Yes but that doesn't tell you much to be honest. I could take a 15 fps video, render it in 60 fps and upload it to YT and it will run at 60 fps but still have skips and jerks.

I've watched a few 60fps full hd videos on my PC via Chrome.
Absolutely no framedrops, low cpu utilization and MUCH SMOOTHER result than standard videos.
Hope to watch much more of these videos in the near future.

It's a real shame that YouTube doesn't support 4k and 60 fps. At least giving the user the option to watch 2160p30 or 1080p60 when you upload 2160p60. I like to capture old games at 1600 x 1200 and then render at 2160p because the videos come out better with more detail.

1280 x 1024 is 5:4 and often elements are then horizontally compressed and 1024 x 768 is too soft / blurry for my liking.

Well you can directly compare:
Original Video: ftp://78.46.141.148/videos/nvidia_new_dawn.mkv
Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdTtrrbPzbY

The original capture is 1920x1200p60 and Youtube always generates 1728x1080 from this. There is no "original size" option while the resolution is actually higher than full HD. So it would require to have it rendered at a higher horizontal resolution like 3840x2400p60, whereas 60 fps is not supported for original size resolutions. It is also a huge waste of bandwidth on upload just to get a resolution enabled that is a multiple of the original one.

Would have been easier to capture it at 1920x1080p60 and it would be flawless.

Some games can be modded to support 1440 x 1080 4:3 but not all of them.

1600 x 1200 has over 2.4 as many pixels as 1024 x 768 so that is the main reason I went with this resolution. Rendered at 4K it looks very detailed even on a 1080p display.