Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Sections

Who's Online
95 user(s) are online (76 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 95

more...

Support us!

Headlines

Report message:*
 

Re: SDL2

Subject: Re: SDL2
by kas1e on 2020/1/25 20:36:53

@Capehill
I made a small test via "testdraw2.exe" coming with sdl2, and:

Pegasos2 with Radeon9250:

testdraw2 --render software: 64fps
testdraw2 --render opengl: 114fps
testdraw2 --render compositing: 264fps

X5000 RadeonHD:

testdraw2 --render software: 288fps
testdraw2 --render opengl: 400fps
testdraw2 --render compositing: 600fps

I.e. all the time, compositing is faster than OpenGL. And fast for about 2 times (exactly the figures I have with DOSBox when using OpenGL -> all slows on 40-50%)

What I want to understand is why compositing is _that_ faster? I mean, why for example minigl/warp3d (and as well as warp3dnova), haven't used "compositing in some parts if it faster. I.e. be OpenGL, just use compositing inside for things where it will be faster.

Just such a massive difference... Can it be luck of DMA for example?

On win32, at least in DOSBox, be it opengl, or ddraw, FPS are the same (as expected).

Can anybody explain why OpenGL vs compositing should be that slow when it comes to simple texture drawing?

Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2016 The XOOPS Project