4 ms·
I dont quite understand this result. The last frame took 0.012999999999738065ms to render. Is there a timer with that resolution? Is this an average over 1000
by BatFastard 9y ago
I dont quite understand this result.
The last frame took 0.012999999999738065ms to render.
Is there a timer with that resolution? Is this an average over 1000 frames? Doesn't seem like it.
Plus, there is no such thing that I know of that is a WebGL program. WebGL is a library that JS or WebAssembly program use to get access to the GPU. So I guess what he is saying is that be moving the calculations to the GPU he got a huge speed up. What's the news there?
- kazagistar 9y agoThat's looks like a floating point error. Don't read into it too much.
- fulafel 9y agoFrom the Results section you can see what the author thinks of the main takeaways: "Currently, running the demonstration in the latest versions of both Chrome and Firefox on Linux, with an integrated Intel GPU, shows that the WebGL version is the fastest, as expected. Interestingly however, the performance of the WebAssembly version matches the plain JavaScript version almost exactly!"