5 ms·
I wonder whether your huge[1] runtime had any effect on the benchmarks. Wouldn't using pure Javascript have been a better idea? I also notice your "C++" versio
by udp 15y ago
I wonder whether your huge[1] runtime had any effect on the benchmarks. Wouldn't using pure Javascript have been a better idea?
I also notice your "C++" version used Direct3D. Shouldn't you have used OpenGL with the exact same calls as the JS to get a fair comparison with the WebGL versions?
[1] http://www.scirra.com/labs/perftest-2d/c2runtime.js http://www.scirra.com/labs/perftest-2d/c2runtime.js
- Impossible 15y agoUnder the hood most (Chrome and Firefox) WebGL implementations use D3D9 on Windows through Angle (http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/ http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/) anyway. There is of course additional overhead in WebGL implementations, Javascript and using Angle as a translation layer, but this is a fair comparison, eventually those sprites are getting rendered by the same drivers and same D3D runtime.
- AshleysBrain 15y agoIt's a 61kb script minified, and jQuery 1.7 is currently 91kb. Yes jQuery is likely to be cached but IMO it's not huge, one of the game's images could easily be 61kb too. On top of that we've seen some competing tools generating like half a megabyte of JS :P Edit: also our intent was to compare real game engines, which necessarily add some performance overhead, rather than a thin experiment.
- ricardobeat 15y agoI believe he was talking about execution speed (the overhead of the framework), not download size.