Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Recently YouTube and Vimeo added HTML5 players to their websites, with options to use them rather than the FLV video. I understand that HTML5 video is less CPU intensive, but what about bandwidth? So...

Given the same video on YouTube/Vimeo which format would be "cheaper" to view: HTML5 or FLV?

share|improve this question
FLV is a container, not a codec, and you can't embed FLV files directly in websites anyway. Maybe you're asking Flash vs HTML5? – Brendan Long Feb 15 '10 at 1:35
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Neither, it's totally dependant on the codec used, just as flash is. I believe they stream in the same format, though they don't have to.

share|improve this answer

YouTube and Vimeo both use the H.264 codec for video, be it displayed via Flash or HTML5. You're downloading the same file either way - the only thing changing is the application that's playing that file

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .