[Varelion]

It seems beyond absurd to me, that this tiny animation should be costing as much as 6% of CPU.

There has to be more optimal ways to do this.

[MITSardine]

So, the CRAY-2 built in 1985 was rated at 1.9 GFLOPS. The M2 the author uses seems to be benchmarked at around 6GFLOPs per core [1]. So this 6% of the author's CPU (assuming charitably this is a single core) corresponds to about 20% of the mid 80's peak supercomputer capacity.

People were already using those computers for applications that go slightly beyond animating 5 x 3 green little bars up and down at the time...

I understand dev time cost > CPU time cost (for the company that hires the developpers anyways) but aren't things getting a little out of hand?

Even without comparing to an 80's supercomputer, what if someone with a 15 years old laptop tries to use their app? What will those 6% CPU on the dev's shiny M2 MBP become?

[1] https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/cpu_list.php

[utopman]

This.

I did not find other comments like this in this thread.

6% M2 cpu (even single core) is a huge computing budget for such a small feature.

At this point I don't really understand why OP seems happy with this result (sorry).

I think even a naive canvas implementation can really and quite easily cut most of this computing budget.

Also, a pure css animated thing should use mostly gpu in a right DOM implementation. I think some issues remains in this result.

Maybe OP displays it's app on a 240hz external screen which makes browser compute DOM animation at 240 fps requiring slighly more compute in a passive way (4o-mini suggests this, I am not sure browser works like this)

I remember too much of my pentium 1 166Mhz let run entire age of empires 2 game in 1997

[efilife]

I did find a comment like this. It's dead

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44653068

[makeitdouble]

I assume 6% is for the whole page.

That's still a lot for a single page IMHO, but it seems that service is doing resource expensive things in the first place.