5 ms·
A suggestion for the benchmarks: add one where the screen is filled with a solid color. I was getting 175fps on 1280x768 with a 1.5Ghz AMD back in 2003.
by quadcore 8y ago
A suggestion for the benchmarks: add one where the screen is filled with a solid color. I was getting 175fps on 1280x768 with a 1.5Ghz AMD back in 2003.
- yason 8y agoSo, such a microbenchmark marks the baseline for how fast you could get via framebuffer. That's like 6 ms per frame. If you spend a bit less than two thirds of the time in rendering you could still get 60 fps. But that's still just crazy slow. The 175 fps at that resolution comes down to about 20-60 MB/s depending on display depth. Memory peak transfer rates were worst like that during the 1990's, then several hundreds of MB/s for regular speeds in the 2000's and are measured in GB/s these days. As long as we can reduce framebuffer access to shared memory (to eliminate legacy transfer methods of pixels, if any) there's no reason we couldn't do significantly better. Basically the display controller is reading the memory and the cpu is writing it so we must share some of the bandwidth but still the speeds should be so high that there's absolutely no reason we should ever see visual jerkiness on framebuffer graphics, due to hardware.
- quadcore 8y agoI was intentionally keeping 'for y for x' loops.
- onirom 8y agoDid a simple clearing test with a 4 cores Raspberry PI 3B and 1280x768 resolution, i get 30 FPS. However a single core memset (still RPI 3B) for this case is fast : 235 FPS