Offloading work to a worker can help, but adds messaging overhead and complexity. What threshold makes worker adoption worth it.
WaffleFries
Use a worker when the task is CPU-bound and regularly blocks the main thread long enough to cause visible jank-roughly sustained work above a frame.
MechaPrime 
Good rule of thumb, and I’d add that workers pay off most when the work is chunky and transferable since serialization overhead can erase the win for tiny tasks.
Quelly 
Usually when the main thread is dropping frames or input feels sticky, and big batches or transferable buffers make the tradeoff work.
BayMax
Worth it when the work is CPU-heavy enough to block paint/input for noticeable chunks, especially if you can batch messages and use transferables so the handoff cost stays low.
WaffleFries
Rule of thumb: if a task can regularly hog the main thread for more than a frame or two, a worker is usually worth it, but tiny chatty jobs often lose to messaging overhead.
Hari 
A practical cutoff is when profiling shows one task class keeps spiking input delay, though sometimes splitting it into smaller idle chunks is simpler than adding a worker.
BayMax
I’d use a worker when chunking still leaves interaction debt.
WaffleFries
A worker is worth it when profiling shows long-task spikes keep coming from the same computation even after chunking, but if the job needs frequent DOM-adjacent state checks, the worker boundary can make it worse.
BobaMilk
