There are some interesting (and surprising) performance implications of using CSS animations that aren't widely known. I stumbled across a few of them while running tests for a customer in the advertising industry who is pushing to have GSAP adopted as the standard, so I recorded a screencast explaining what I found. I figured it was worth sharing:
- Timeline recordings in Chrome Dev Tools don't show the overhead involved with CSS animation of transforms, so people often misinterpret the [lack of] data. Recordings look "clean" with CSS and "dirty" with JS which leads to faulty conclusions about performance.
- CSS animations of transforms used twice as much CPU compared to JS according to Chrome's task manager.
- Webkit browsers have synchronization problems.
- I love Dev Tools - I'm not knocking it at all. These things are just tough to measure.
- Do your own tests! Don't put too much faith in Dev Tools or my tests. Use your eyes because ultimately perception is what matters to end users. Smooth movement and responsive UI are both important.
- Raw Codepen test
- Google's Paul Lewis addresses CSS vs. JS Animations
- A great article about hardware accelerated CSS by Ariya Hidayat
- Why GSAP? - a practical developer's guide
UPDATE: After recording the video, I did some more tests that showed that one of the biggest contributors to the slowdowns in the pure CSS version was the fact that multiple elements had to be nested in order to accomplish the independent transform component controls. In other words, staggering the start/end times (or easing) of rotation, scale, and position is practically impossible in pure CSS unless you nest things like that, but there's a relatively significant performance tradeoff. When nesting could be avoided, pure CSS animation of only transforms did appear smoother on webkit browsers under heavy pressure and it was basically indistinguishable from optimized JS animations under all other levels of pressure.
Edited by GreenSock