4 ms·
And yet the graphics are actually the performance bottleneck. I tried that on a 4k monitor, and it ran quite slowly. I then made the window smaller, and it ran
by JoshTriplett 6y ago
And yet the graphics are actually the performance bottleneck.
I tried that on a 4k monitor, and it ran quite slowly. I then made the window smaller, and it ran much faster. It's bottlenecked on the graphics, not on the physics engine.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoI think that says a lot more about your combination of software and hardware than webasm. If someone says "webasm is slow, this demo took 45 seconds to run" and you say "it ran slow for me when I made the window so big that between my browser's webgl implementation, my gpu drivers and my graphics card, a hundred cubes make everything run at 1/10th the speed" what point is that making?
- JoshTriplett 6y agoThis subthread started because two people saw wildly different performance for the same demo, and some attributed that to wasm. My point was that given that the demo seems heavily dependent on graphics performance, it's unlikely that the observed performance differences had anything to do with wasm.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoThe demo is just a few boxes, it is not graphics limited. A 4k webgl window might have some sort of bottleneck in your web browser, drivers or gpu. The demo is a physics simulation though. I don't know why you would create a situation where anything would slow down on your computer while having nothing to do with CPU speed and then talk about it in a thread about webasm.
- megameter 6y agoIt doesn't matter how many boxes there are if the shaders run in software, which is going to be the case on really old integrated graphics.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoI'm not sure why anyone would think it makes sense to use a computer so ancient it can't run webgl and then use that to talk about webasm not being fast on a webgl demo.