5 ms·

CoreCLR is not built for game, the fork from Unity is so there is little chance that CoreCLR is faster.

by Thaxll 4y ago

andix 4y ago
What are the specific requirements for games? C++ is also not built for games. It’s built for anything, including games.
- mastax 4y ago
  Consistent low latency, perhaps.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - andix 4y ago
    I don't see a lot of options how you should optimize that, besides using allocation free code. .NET (Core) did a lot of work into this direction for Kestrel HTTP server already (Span, ref structs). It's still a managed platform with a garbage collector, but I don't think games have such low-latency requirements, that can't be handled with the standard garbage collector. A few milliseconds are usually fine for games, even with 120Hz the time between two frames is still 8ms. And garbage collection can be suspended during critical phases.
jackmott42 4y ago
This is not correct, as can be readily proven to yourself by measuring.
gcl09 4y ago
Sorry but that makes no sense. Here are quotes from the C#/.NET group director at unity about how the migration to CoreCLR should bring a large perf boost: "One thing that should help in the future is the migration to CoreCLR that should provide a great boost in terms of performance."[1] "What we have seen, outside of Unity, is that performance with CoreCLR compared to Mono should range from 2x to 10x faster." [2] [1] https://forum.unity.com/threads/performance-optimizations-for-gameobjects.1403782/#post-8829403 https://forum.unity.com/threads/performance-optimizations-fo... [2] https://forum.unity.com/threads/expected-performance-of-new-coreclr-vs-mono-vs-il2cpp.1403353/#post-8828794 https://forum.unity.com/threads/expected-performance-of-new-...
- Thaxll 4y ago
  "outside of Unity"
  - andix 4y ago
    Because unity is not yet on CoreCLR. But unity shouldn‘t be much different to other applications. Jetbrains moved Rider only a few years ago to .NET Core, and everything became much snappier (it was on on .NET 4.x on windows and on mono for Linux/Mac before, which was even slower than the windows only full framework)
aliswe 4y ago
This claim would make more sense if the Mono was heavily optimized specifically for games, which is not the case. CoreCLR is heavily optimized period
- andix 4y ago
  Exactly. For ASP.NET they also optimized latency heavily.
unmole 4y ago
Is it also webscale? /s

CoreCLR is not built for game, the fork from Unity is so there is little chance that CoreCLR is faster.

by Thaxll 4y ago

CoreCLR is not built for game, the fork from Unity is so there is little chance that CoreCLR is faster.

What are the specific requirements for games? C++ is also not built for games. It’s built for anything, including games.

mastax 4y ago
Consistent low latency, perhaps.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- andix 4y ago
  I don't see a lot of options how you should optimize that, besides using allocation free code. .NET (Core) did a lot of work into this direction for Kestrel HTTP server already (Span, ref structs). It's still a managed platform with a garbage collector, but I don't think games have such low-latency requirements, that can't be handled with the standard garbage collector. A few milliseconds are usually fine for games, even with 120Hz the time between two frames is still 8ms. And garbage collection can be suspended during critical phases.

jackmott42 4y ago

This is not correct, as can be readily proven to yourself by measuring.

gcl09 4y ago

Sorry but that makes no sense. Here are quotes from the C#/.NET group director at unity about how the migration to CoreCLR should bring a large perf boost: "One thing that should help in the future is the migration to CoreCLR that should provide a great boost in terms of performance."[1] "What we have seen, outside of Unity, is that performance with CoreCLR compared to Mono should range from 2x to 10x faster." [2] [1] https://forum.unity.com/threads/performance-optimizations-for-gameobjects.1403782/#post-8829403 https://forum.unity.com/threads/performance-optimizations-fo... [2] https://forum.unity.com/threads/expected-performance-of-new-coreclr-vs-mono-vs-il2cpp.1403353/#post-8828794 https://forum.unity.com/threads/expected-performance-of-new-...

Thaxll 4y ago
"outside of Unity"
- andix 4y ago
  Because unity is not yet on CoreCLR. But unity shouldn‘t be much different to other applications. Jetbrains moved Rider only a few years ago to .NET Core, and everything became much snappier (it was on on .NET 4.x on windows and on mono for Linux/Mac before, which was even slower than the windows only full framework)

aliswe 4y ago

This claim would make more sense if the Mono was heavily optimized specifically for games, which is not the case. CoreCLR is heavily optimized period

andix 4y ago
Exactly. For ASP.NET they also optimized latency heavily.

unmole 4y ago

Is it also webscale? /s