Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

A benchmark that matters: Take the Hulu Challenge!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 17, 2008 3:27:02 AM

How much CPU power is needed to surf the internet? With flash becoming evermore ubiquitous in this age of high speed multimedia, can a single core CPU still keep up? Based on my experiences with one up-and-coming free TV website, Hulu.com, I have my doubts:

It's amazing to see that flash video can be so cpu intensive. Full screen flash video over at hulu.com uses on average 90% of both cores on a Pentium D 805 at 3.1 GHz. Resolution is 1280x1024. At stock 2.66 GHz the video is jittery all the time. The D 805 may be slow compared to modern CPUs, but it's still a little crazy to think that overclocking any dual core is necessary just to play fullscreen flash video over the internet. Even at 3.1 GHz, there is still occasional lag/dropped frames/fuzzy frames during scenes with very fast action shots. Firefox 2.0 was the browser used.

I would like others to try Hulu (it's free to the public now). Play a video fullscreen and post what your CPU usage and how the video looked (smooth or choppy, occasional dropped frame, etc.). I hope to get enough people responding for a good comparison. I especially want to know if any single core CPUs can keep up. I think the screen resolution is a big factor, so be sure to post your screen res, and also state what browser you're using, to see if there may be a difference between firefox and IE.

On a final note, we see benchmarks on this site all the time. How many frames in a game, how many 3Dmark points, how fast can it encode, etc., but this test of CPU strength is based in reality. After all, if a CPU can't even handle the internet, what's the point of all the other benchmarks? Flash video may not be a problem for most of us on this board, being enthusiasts we like to run some of the latest and greatest hardware, but what about our parents, siblings, and friends? Can their computers handle it? If you were to build someone you know an entry level system, how much CPU would they need to ensure a rich internet experience? Please, post up your results people. The forums are getting boring. Thanks. :) 
March 17, 2008 3:46:07 AM

Anyone old enough to have seen dragnet should be more careful of what they watch. You only get one heart you know.
March 17, 2008 4:10:07 AM

The joy of reruns. Dragnet is also on Hulu. You need to check it out and post back your results.
Related resources
March 17, 2008 4:51:46 AM

My "emachine" is a P4 3000 prescott. Wait till I'm at least on one of my amd machines.
a c 131 à CPUs
March 17, 2008 5:22:31 AM

Video not available in your region...BOOOOOO

Ohhh well MCE recorded it for me :p 
March 17, 2008 5:31:34 AM

Hey nuke do you get the yellow toolbar when you try to download windows update?
a c 131 à CPUs
March 17, 2008 5:45:51 AM

You mean the MS update Active X? if so the first time, yes....but i normally get my updates from the auto updates.

My image is from 2005....i only did see that once.
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2008 10:59:29 AM

For some reason my PC won't play YouTube videos full-screen.
IT just puts up a screen that's half black, half white, with a diagonal divide.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 17, 2008 1:49:35 PM

mi1ez said:
For some reason my PC won't play YouTube videos full-screen.
IT just puts up a screen that's half black, half white, with a diagonal divide.


It is something to do with the drivers for ATI. After 8.0 and up I have had the same problem(have a HD2900Pro 1GB). To fix this simply right click on the YouTube video or flash video and select settings. Then uncheck "Enable Hardware Decoding". This should do it as it has worked for me. Hope they get it fixed soon though.

I went wo Hulu.com and watched the latest Famil Guy at full screen in IE7 on Vista @ 1280x1024 and my CPU would peak at 13% when loading then stay around 7% and was nice and smooth. This all on a Q6600 @ 3GHz but it had SpeedStep enabled and never got busy enough to go above the 2GHz SpeedStep mark. So it never went to 3GHz during that time.

This would also include Steam as it usually utilizes 3-4% of the CPU every now and then when it checks for updates and Windows update and Live One Care. But overall my Q6600 streamed that video like a champ :D  .
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2008 2:07:07 PM

Cheers Jimmy, wasn't even after a fix! lol
March 18, 2008 2:31:56 AM

come on people. It only takes a minute to try this.

My HTPC at 640x480 res can play full screen video without any stuttering or visual problems using a Pentium 4 2.4C. CPU usage is in the 90% range though.
March 18, 2008 3:01:15 AM

I checked but I have a Q6600 @ 3G, not really useful information. X1950pro @ full screen with no stutter and a ridiculously small usage 4%-8% if memory serves.
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2008 3:02:09 AM

My sigrig play full screen (12 x 10) with no stuttering and bright deep colors. I have no idea what percentage of the CPU usage is in effect. My BUS is 333MHz stock.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 18, 2008 2:58:29 PM

joefriday said:
come on people. It only takes a minute to try this.

My HTPC at 640x480 res can play full screen video without any stuttering or visual problems using a Pentium 4 2.4C. CPU usage is in the 90% range though.


I will check my old PC today. Couldn't as its my fiances and she is on it from when she gets home from work till she goes to bed. But its a Pentium 4 EE 3.4GHz with a X850XT PE so that might be interesting to see what it can do.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 18, 2008 9:39:53 PM

Just ran it on my old system and it was taking about 17-29% when full screen. Thats quite a bit for flash. My old system is a P4 EE 3.4GHz 2MB L3 cache and a X850XT PE so yea... have I said I love my Q6600 today?
March 18, 2008 10:32:16 PM

Hey tried it on mine,intel e4500,cpu, usage on fullscreen was 57%.I am using an old 6600gt till I can afford to upgrade,why is my percentage so high?
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2008 10:59:02 PM

^Too many background programs (ie Torrent,etc) or virus/spyware?
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2008 11:01:52 PM

OK ran it on my E2180 rig and CPU usage is under 12% in full screen. Its about the same on all my rigs actually, the Q6600 rig only uses up 4%.
March 18, 2008 11:25:14 PM

I'm not sure what my %Usage is, but I've run Hulu on a second Screen of my E4300 @3.0Ghz and did not notice a lick of difference in system responsiveness. And that was with a number of VMs running in the background.

My 1.8Ghz Pentium M Laptop did not seem to notice a hit either, but I was doing less multi-tasking.
March 18, 2008 11:33:59 PM

It,s a week old,Im using Asus PC probe to get my numbers.Nothing else running,anything else I should look at?
March 19, 2008 3:53:19 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Just ran it on my old system and it was taking about 17-29% when full screen. Thats quite a bit for flash. My old system is a P4 EE 3.4GHz 2MB L3 cache and a X850XT PE so yea... have I said I love my Q6600 today?


Weird that you only got 17-29% usage, when my D 805 at 3.1GHz is hitting up to 90% at times. What resolution you running at? What browser?

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far. I really appreciate it.
March 19, 2008 4:18:09 AM

Hey guys, I just compared the CPU usage between firefox and IE, using the same video clip on Hulu. Firefox takes about 20 to 30% more CPU usage to render the same picture in fullscreen than IE.

In Firefox, CPU usage was 70% on my D 805 @ 3.1GHz. In IE, it was a bit over 40% for the same clip.
March 19, 2008 4:52:38 AM

p3 733 512 Mb ram, voodoo 3 3000 nothing running, not even a virus scan installed - looks acceptable at 1024x768, but anything and i do mean anything happens - like a pop up, it'll studder.
March 19, 2008 5:00:06 AM

interesting topic. I was just there for the first time and watched an snl skit. I heard the fan throttle up after a minute or so and checked cpu..at 30%. obviously software rendering, net or not, it will use alot.
I have 2.8e prescott, 1gb ram 3mbit inet connect
It only throttled my 2200 rpm cpu fan when I made the vid "popout" into its own page at a size I wanted.
to go there and just watch what they give is hardly anything to notice. My resolution desktop is 1280x960 (exactly a 4:3 monitor..) ati vid card.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 19, 2008 2:13:29 PM

joefriday said:
Weird that you only got 17-29% usage, when my D 805 at 3.1GHz is hitting up to 90% at times. What resolution you running at? What browser?

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far. I really appreciate it.


it was XP SP2, IE7 and at 1280x1024. But the main difference, even though yours is a Pentium D, is that my old CPU is a EE and while the new ones only have an unlocked multiplier, the first ones(the Northwoods @ 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz<---being mine) had a nice big helping of L3 cache, 2MB to be eaxact.

When I switched from my 3.2GHz P4 to the P4EE 3.4GHz I cut my DVD9 to DVD5 time from 30 minutes to about 7 minutes. Was nice.

The entire system was hitting 57% but my fiance has a MMO game that was running and taking about 15-25% of the CPU.

I think it also has to do with the fact that my X850XT has AVIVO on it as well. It might havs been offloading some of the processing to the GPU.

I based it off of task manager and what % of the CPU that IE was taking. On my other syetem it was easier cuz my Logitech G15 links up to the task manager and shows CPU and memory usage on the LCD. Of course thats total system usage and not just what IE uses. If I look at just IE7 on my Q6600 when full screen it hits maybe 4%.
March 19, 2008 2:17:41 PM

I just tried it this morning and it worked flawlessly for me.

X2 4000+ (OC'd to 2450)
2 Gig Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 (at 800 mhz)
XFX 8600GT XXX Edition 256 Ram (OC'd to 700 core/850 Mem)
Windows XP Home SP2

I used Internet Explorer, ran it full screen (1280x1024) with the HD video setting selected on the Hulu options and it used approx 10-20% of my CPU. It may have even been less for that particular app alone. I wasn't running anything other than AVG Virus and Spyware, and a few other little things, like Coretemp.
March 19, 2008 3:18:33 PM

Hmm...

When the movies is playing in another tab, the usage is 10-13% with both cores being used.

When I'm actually seeing the movie play, the usage is 18-20% with both cores being used.

Full screen, both cores are around 45-57% usage.

I use 1680x1080 resolution.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 19, 2008 3:27:26 PM

Grimmy said:
Hmm...

When the movies is playing in another tab, the usage is 10-13% with both cores being used.

When I'm actually seeing the movie play, the usage is 18-20% with both cores being used.

Full screen, both cores are around 45-57% usage.

I use 1680x1080 resolution.


Is this on your E4400 system? If so it would seem that more cache would equal better performance in this area huh?
March 19, 2008 3:31:52 PM

Ya... Its my old.. errr some what old E4400. :lol: 

Forgot that to mention I use FireFox, and the usage goes down to 1% when the tab is closed. Got the same results with just using IE 7.0.
March 19, 2008 4:15:35 PM

AMD X2 4400+, 2 GB Ram, 7600GT, IE6, .
Bounces between 4 and 35% useage depending on the video. Most of the time around 17 to 20%.
On full screen, (1152 x 864 res) jumps to around 80% on one core then bounces between 40 and 60 throughout the video while the other core stays around 4%.
December 17, 2008 1:48:33 AM

I know that this is an old thread, but I came across it when I was trying to get my PIII 1ghz w/ 512 ram and a Radeon 9250 (PCI w/ 256mb) work better. I had some luck, so I thought I would share.

Some movies seemed better than others, meaning some movies freeze a little, but others would take twice as long to watch if you waited for all the skipping even at minimum resolution. That was with Firefox. I-Explorer seemed a little bit better. I then found K-Meleon which is based off of Firefox, so that my shockwave plugin for Firefox worked for it. While the other two browsers would peg my cpu w/ out even going to full screen, K-Meleon held steady at 75-80% and went up another 15% in full screen, with minimal skipping.

If you are trying to use Hulu on an old Windows machine try K-Meleon (just have shockwave set up with Firefox first that seems to solve some problems according to some of the information on their site).
December 24, 2008 7:19:20 AM

Interesting, I didnt know it was CPU the reason why my video looks choppy. I am trying to watch Heroes on www.hulu.com/hd. The picture looks so astonishing, but it keeps choppy. I am using P4 3.0Ghz with 1gb RAM.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2008 8:26:27 AM

right now my E8500 is only at 3.8 gighz and i can run an HD stream of the office using ~ 47% of my cpu. thats with stuff running the background however. it really shows you just how crappy flash is though because i can run 10 1080i movies on VLC on my computer no problem roughly ~ 60% cpu usage. i run 1 HD show on flash and its 47% cpu usage? pfft. ill stick with downloading + flash. screw hulucrap.
April 7, 2009 10:50:47 PM

jimbofluffy said:
I know that this is an old thread, but I came across it when I was trying to get my PIII 1ghz w/ 512 ram and a Radeon 9250 (PCI w/ 256mb) work better. I had some luck, so I thought I would share.

Some movies seemed better than others, meaning some movies freeze a little, but others would take twice as long to watch if you waited for all the skipping even at minimum resolution. That was with Firefox. I-Explorer seemed a little bit better. I then found K-Meleon which is based off of Firefox, so that my shockwave plugin for Firefox worked for it. While the other two browsers would peg my cpu w/ out even going to full screen, K-Meleon held steady at 75-80% and went up another 15% in full screen, with minimal skipping.

If you are trying to use Hulu on an old Windows machine try K-Meleon (just have shockwave set up with Firefox first that seems to solve some problems according to some of the information on their site).



Thanks for the K-Meleon tip! I have been struggling to get an old machine to play Hulu.com videos without frame dropping, and this might be the extra edge I need!
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 11:03:01 PM

Around 26% CPU usage for a 480p fullscreen stream from hulu with both the CPU and GPU folding@home clients running in the background, as well as a couple of simulation programs and windows media player. If I close hulu and keep everything else running, it's at around 17%, so perhaps 9% of that usage was Hulu. It really doesn't seem to take much power on an i7@4GHz :) 
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 11:24:39 PM

cjl said:
Around 26% CPU usage for a 480p fullscreen stream from hulu with both the CPU and GPU folding@home clients running in the background, as well as a couple of simulation programs and windows media player. If I close hulu and keep everything else running, it's at around 17%, so perhaps 9% of that usage was Hulu. It really doesn't seem to take much power on an i7@4GHz :) 


Braggart!! :) 

I hope to have an i7 in the next couple months, that is if my daughter will stop breaking her laptop computer and putting me in the poorhouse.

Anyway, I believe abc.com also uses flash as their HD and SD streaming video player. I was watching the last episode of Lost in HD fullscreen (probably 720P or lower) last Thursday and no stutter, no problems on my daughter's old Dell laptop XPS which has a Core Duo (not Core2) at 2.0GHz, over a 802.11g wifi connection. I have this lappy connected to a 50" plasma via a DVI-to-HDMI cable, so I can spot any problems right away as I sit about 3 feet from the TV. I did notice some artifacting in the background scenes, probably due to the compression however.

Then Saturday night I was showing the same episode to a friend and the picture was terrible - kept dropping down into SD and maybe all the way down to Hercules or CGA resolution :) . Obviously abc's server gets a lot of hits on weekend nights, so it downgrades the signal to the point of being unwatchable, in lieu of just freezing it.

I thought I read somewhere that Microsoft's Silverlight was supposed to do streaming video better and with lower bandwidth than flash. Outside of MSN.com, I don't see a lot of places using it yet...
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 11:55:49 PM

Oh, and it goes up to 11% usage for Hulu if I do a fullscreen 720P stream :) 
a c 99 à CPUs
April 8, 2009 2:44:44 AM

joefriday said:
How much CPU power is needed to surf the internet? With flash becoming evermore ubiquitous in this age of high speed multimedia, can a single core CPU still keep up? Based on my experiences with one up-and-coming free TV website, Hulu.com, I have my doubts:

It's amazing to see that flash video can be so cpu intensive. Full screen flash video over at hulu.com uses on average 90% of both cores on a Pentium D 805 at 3.1 GHz. Resolution is 1280x1024. At stock 2.66 GHz the video is jittery all the time. The D 805 may be slow compared to modern CPUs, but it's still a little crazy to think that overclocking any dual core is necessary just to play fullscreen flash video over the internet. Even at 3.1 GHz, there is still occasional lag/dropped frames/fuzzy frames during scenes with very fast action shots. Firefox 2.0 was the browser used.

I would like others to try Hulu (it's free to the public now). Play a video fullscreen and post what your CPU usage and how the video looked (smooth or choppy, occasional dropped frame, etc.). I hope to get enough people responding for a good comparison. I especially want to know if any single core CPUs can keep up. I think the screen resolution is a big factor, so be sure to post your screen res, and also state what browser you're using, to see if there may be a difference between firefox and IE.

On a final note, we see benchmarks on this site all the time. How many frames in a game, how many 3Dmark points, how fast can it encode, etc., but this test of CPU strength is based in reality. After all, if a CPU can't even handle the internet, what's the point of all the other benchmarks? Flash video may not be a problem for most of us on this board, being enthusiasts we like to run some of the latest and greatest hardware, but what about our parents, siblings, and friends? Can their computers handle it? If you were to build someone you know an entry level system, how much CPU would they need to ensure a rich internet experience? Please, post up your results people. The forums are getting boring. Thanks. :) 


I watched the first few minutes of a Family Guy episode ("FOXy Lady") on Hulu. Here's what I got:

Windowed: roughly 12% usage on one core
Full-screen: about 85% usage on one core

Screen resolution: 2048x1152
GPU: ATi Radeon HD 3850 512 MB
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (socket 939)
Browser: Firefox 3.0.6 on 64-bit Linux
SWF decoder: Adobe Flash Player 10.0 32-bit via nspluginwrapper (known to be an inefficient setup w/64-bit browser, but Adobe's native 64-bit player is far from stable.)

My system can play back 1080i MPEG-2 video from an OTA antenna or unencrypted cable without GPU decode assist (using Xvideo) and only take about 35% of one core to do so. If I deinterlace it, then I use about 65% of one core. The only thing this CPU can't do is play back high-bitrate 1080i/1080p H.264. That's not too bad for a CPU that's pushing four years old.
a c 99 à CPUs
April 8, 2009 2:56:53 AM

jimbofluffy said:
I know that this is an old thread, but I came across it when I was trying to get my PIII 1ghz w/ 512 ram and a Radeon 9250 (PCI w/ 256mb) work better. I had some luck, so I thought I would share.

Some movies seemed better than others, meaning some movies freeze a little, but others would take twice as long to watch if you waited for all the skipping even at minimum resolution. That was with Firefox. I-Explorer seemed a little bit better. I then found K-Meleon which is based off of Firefox, so that my shockwave plugin for Firefox worked for it. While the other two browsers would peg my cpu w/ out even going to full screen, K-Meleon held steady at 75-80% and went up another 15% in full screen, with minimal skipping.

If you are trying to use Hulu on an old Windows machine try K-Meleon (just have shockwave set up with Firefox first that seems to solve some problems according to some of the information on their site).


You may also be bumping up against the bandwidth limits of the PCI bus you have your GPU hooked into if you are playing the HD videos on Hulu. My HTPC has an Athlon XP 3200+ and has more than enough grunt to play back OTA and unencrypted 1080i MPEG-2 video, but it also has a cheapie PCI video card (GeForce 6200 256 MB) in it from an old rig and it gets severely bottlenecked by the PCI bus. It plays low-def videos fine and it does okay up to 720i video, but much beyond that and it starts to get bottlenecked and give really weird artifacts as a result. 720p30 and 1080i30 video take up about 85-90 MB/sec of bandwidth after converting to 8 bits/pixel RGB just for the video stream, let alone any other communication to the GPU. The PCI bus is shared with everything else, so your bandwidth is pretty limited and a PCI GPU is not really able to handle HD video.
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2009 2:57:00 AM

cjl said:
Oh, and it goes up to 11% usage for Hulu if I do a fullscreen 720P stream :) 


LOL - you do enjoy rubbing it in :kaola: 

I guess my ancient Q6700 will have to do until (1) my daughter graduates & gets an actual, paying-type job, or (2) I hit the dang Lotto.

I'm trying to refi my house, which is probably worth 30% less than what I paid the damn builder, so between my daughter & my wife's wanting a giant diamond for her 37th birthday, I'm walking a pretty thin line here :) .

Of course I want my daughter to graduate next year and get off the Daddy welfare rolls, so I guess a cheapo replacement laptop is needed, but the diamond?? I'm seriously considering risking a cubic zirconium thingy from Walmart here.
April 8, 2009 3:02:50 AM

Q6700 @ 2.66 GHZ
Geforce 7900 GS-OC
Windows 7 beta w/beta IE8 (Not gold code available for XP/Vista)

480p stream on fullstream: ~60% on one core, 15-20% on the other there. Paused content: ~1%
April 8, 2009 1:25:48 PM

MU_Engineer said:
You may also be bumping up against the bandwidth limits of the PCI bus you have your GPU hooked into if you are playing the HD videos on Hulu. My HTPC has an Athlon XP 3200+ and has more than enough grunt to play back OTA and unencrypted 1080i MPEG-2 video, but it also has a cheapie PCI video card (GeForce 6200 256 MB) in it from an old rig and it gets severely bottlenecked by the PCI bus. It plays low-def videos fine and it does okay up to 720i video, but much beyond that and it starts to get bottlenecked and give really weird artifacts as a result. 720p30 and 1080i30 video take up about 85-90 MB/sec of bandwidth after converting to 8 bits/pixel RGB just for the video stream, let alone any other communication to the GPU. The PCI bus is shared with everything else, so your bandwidth is pretty limited and a PCI GPU is not really able to handle HD video.


That is a good point that I hadn't thought about. I always switch to low quality and it has worked well the last three months. However, I do remember a while back getting some artifacts, also on my older Macbook, but I don't remember what I was doing to get them. "Luckily" for me I use an old about 30" CRT TV, so the quality isn't so much of an issue. However, when I do get a new TV sometime in the future it will be accompanied by a PC with more than just PCI slots.
April 8, 2009 6:10:37 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
LOL - you do enjoy rubbing it in :kaola: 

I guess my ancient Q6700 will have to do until (1) my daughter graduates & gets an actual, paying-type job, or (2) I hit the dang Lotto.

I'm trying to refi my house, which is probably worth 30% less than what I paid the damn builder, so between my daughter & my wife's wanting a giant diamond for her 37th birthday, I'm walking a pretty thin line here :) .

Of course I want my daughter to graduate next year and get off the Daddy welfare rolls, so I guess a cheapo replacement laptop is needed, but the diamond?? I'm seriously considering risking a cubic zirconium thingy from Walmart here.


You buy that diamond shes supposed to love you on your whim you know.

Word, Playa.
April 8, 2009 6:50:30 PM

AMD 5600 x2 @3.15G 4%
4G at 40%
8800GTX 621/900/1458
1400x900 resolution
2mb connection 1mb in use
480p in windowed mode as I dont have second monitor hooked up right now so I cant see the task manager.

edit: on full screen cpu at 18 - 20%. After hooking the second monitor back up.
a c 83 à CPUs
April 8, 2009 9:15:49 PM

I'm not at home to check cpu usage, but I've been watching videos on hulu for some time now. My old laptop with a single core Athlon 3500 and Radeon Xpress 200 graphics has never lagged during full screen video on hulu and that is while running a dual monitor display.
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2009 6:45:25 PM

spud said:
You buy that diamond shes supposed to love you on your whim you know.

Word, Playa.


Well a dozen roses, taking the day off from work and taking her to the the cherry blossom festival stuff in Washington, DC and then a nice restaurant for dinner did the trick :) . For about the price of the cubic zirconium ring :) 

However I can see the writing on the wall, so I better start saving up for that all-important 40th B-day...
April 10, 2009 3:07:53 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Well a dozen roses, taking the day off from work and taking her to the the cherry blossom festival stuff in Washington, DC and then a nice restaurant for dinner did the trick :) . For about the price of the cubic zirconium ring :) 

However I can see the writing on the wall, so I better start saving up for that all-important 40th B-day...


Word, Playa.
April 14, 2009 4:11:15 AM

i just finished a new built and your made sense for a real test.i went to hulu and watched serenity on full screen at 1280x1024 resolution.no problems at all, no lagg or choppy frame rate.it was just like watching regular tv. cpu usage was 3%
my rig
lian li p80r case
i7 920 cpu overclocked to 3.8 ghz
coolmaster n520 cpu cooler
coolermaster 1350 watt psu
asus 4870x2 gpu
soundblaster extreme gamer sound card
seagate 1.5tb hd
asus dvd burner-optical drive
asus p6t deluxe v2 mobo
12gb ocz xmp ddr3 ram
April 14, 2009 4:10:10 PM

:pfff:  :ange:  Typical US users only....!!??!! :wahoo: 
!