[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL performance...seems like I have no hardware acceleration?!?
- To: Steve Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL performance...seems like I have no hardware acceleration?!?
- From: TrÆÆng Äác PhÆÆng <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:34:32 +0700
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dQg3RXm7GMeB9kmkA9QWWVw8KiwszT84/FpzM5yCwmU=; b=d3ldl1CmDtCq+/kSyQjSX+h6rK4S28sCoSDFMeYzSCpTm4mqRf0zCazGrIzCGt+7Gy 0SKmy+1IvvhjcxeS7czvYMFJKh9JoPuSKn2NOIasmP6fTHiYR/g9jw66VWNqKyBe33G2 rfOfhk53Fa/mmcKFbBGZnlCZftFmu1d3ib8w8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=iKvlPXN4YXK2L2TLvvmxKG5tufYacuG7bzx8Cc+BPYv9TIh8J8ZzR/7IS/yterFqHa 5CGcidNu6CC6RwrKrB1gGyqcvdV98WP0i4syq9HneZ+bt+cgNB32k6gb9+tXWx/ejyW6 Xb7cNBex6eNCpONuGalStOgyveKqy4PYgowy4=
- In-reply-to: <4BFDD677.email@example.com>
- References: <4BFDD677.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
I see this performance problem on Chrome and Safari too :|
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Steve Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I've been thinking about porting some of my old OpenGL games over to
WebGL - and sticking them on my website for free to help to promote
WebGL (which is a noble and important cause!) and I'm seeing some weird
performance issues. (I've been an OpenGL programmer since it was
pronounced "IrisGL" - and I work in the games industry as a senior
graphics programmer - so I'm not entirely clueless).
graphics card - right? - so my expectation would be that if I push as
much functionality onto the GPU as possible and keep things simple on
To test, I wrote a really minimal application - it sets up matrices, it
clears the screen and renders a few simple objects and uses
setTimeout("draw()",1) to try to get the best framerate I can. I'm
getting like 10Hz. :-(
nasty, I tossed out all of the 3D rendering and did nothing but clear
the screen. Doing this test at a number of different canvas sizes, I get:
800x600 : 35Hz.
200x200 : 90Hz.
100x100 : 180Hz.
8x8 : 180Hz.
Commenting out the clear-screen and doing no OpenGL calls at all in my
main loop still gets me 180Hz - so I guess I'm CPU-limited at that frame
This is exceedingly surprising. If we have hardware acceleration - then
the screen should clear in WAY under a millisecond on my modern nVidia
loop rate of 180Hz even at 1280x1024.
So it looks like we're either not running with hardware acceleration -
or there is some kind of software operation on the raster going on
that's crippling the frame rate. I'm running the latest daily builds of
FireFox "minefield" - and I've double-checked that I have software
rendering disabled in the 'about:config' system. I'm running Linux on
one machine, WinXP on another and Windows-7 on a third - and getting
pretty consistent results on all three machines.
But even at that - the difference between 200x200 and 100x100 is 30,000
pixels rendered in 6ms or 5Mpixels/sec ...which for a simple: gl.clear
( gl.COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | gl.DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT ) would be slow even for
The machine I'm rendering on is a 2.8GHz quad-core with a dual nVidia
GeForce GTX 285 GPU - but I get almost identical times on my ancient
2.6GHz single-core with a dusty old GeForce 6800! An even more ancient
machine with a 1GHz CPU gets roughly half the frame rate across the
board...again, suggesting we're seeing some software performance cap here.
You are currently subscribed to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the following command in the body of your email: