Request for feedback: front-to-back renderer performance

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:58 am

Ashley wrote:@Sisyphus & @matrixreal - I'm looking for specific performance numbers with real-world games, not our artificial test that just creates piles of sprites. Can you report on any specific FPS numbers?

Oh, i'm not talking about the test now and in previous post, it's about the game i'm working on. Here's some fps numbers.

Better performance with:
Desktop with 660ti and 2560x1080 screen - 55-60 fps without ftb, and stable 60 with ftb.
Laptop with nvidia 635m and 1920x1080 - 40fps without, 55-60 with ftb.
Old pc with nvidia 9600gt 2560x1080 - 40fps without, 50-60 fps with ftb.

No changes or performance regression with:
Any macbook i try (late 2013, early 2015) with intel gpu and 2560x1600 screen 35-40fps without, 30-40fps with ftb.
Laptop with intel hd4400 and 1920x1080 - 30fps always with or without ftb.
Netbook Intel GMA and hd screen - 10-30 without ftb, Crash with ftb.
B
22
S
9
G
7
Posts: 421
Reputation: 6,543

Post » Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:32 am

Ashley wrote:I'm looking for specific performance numbers with real-world games, not our artificial test that just creates piles of sprites. Can you report on any specific FPS numbers?


Umbra demo - run through the same section of part of my alpha test (with javascript tools running in chrome):

Back to front: 51 fps:
Image


Front to back: 44 fps:
Image


Edit:

With javascript tools off, so just the game running:

Back to front: 60 fps / 40% cpu / delta dt: 0.1 ms
Back to front: 60 fps (occasional drops to 59 fps) / 44% cpu / delta dt 0.8 ms

So, little discernible difference real-time.
A big fan of JavaScript.
B
74
S
20
G
71
Posts: 2,230
Reputation: 44,892

Post » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:07 pm

@ashley

black screen on ipad 2 / retina / air / iphone 5 iOS 8.3

work fine on iphone 4s 7.1.2
B
46
S
16
G
8
Posts: 794
Reputation: 8,335

Post » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:35 pm

My knowledge of rendering is near non-existent, but why is FTB consistently slower? Surely in most cases the added benefit of graphic occlusion should be saving draw calls and improving performance?
B
60
S
21
G
10
Posts: 643
Reputation: 10,320

Post » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:28 am

@Elliott - look at the numbers in this thread, it's not consistently slower. But it's not always faster either. It adds extra CPU and GPU overhead in order to eliminate overdraw, and if there's not much overdraw then it will be slower.

So there's not much good news here. I'm particularly concerned that it crashes some devices or introduces display glitches. It's not much use if it's slightly faster on some devices, but crashes on others. So I don't think it's worth shipping this in a stable release. I think we will retract this feature and go back to back-to-front rendering only. Any objections?
Scirra Founder
B
398
S
236
G
88
Posts: 24,433
Reputation: 194,635

Post » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:02 pm

i think thats probably best, its not stable and not really great improvements so its best not to use, not even as an option, too bad, well.. only a step closer to something that does work :) i still think reducing textureswapping might improve the renderer, just a sidenote..
ImageImage
B
70
S
21
G
7
Posts: 827
Reputation: 10,052

Post » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:34 pm

I agree - I applaud giving this a try and it's a pity that it didn't bear fruit.
A big fan of JavaScript.
B
74
S
20
G
71
Posts: 2,230
Reputation: 44,892

Previous

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests