5 ms·

The question here is whether the new, optimized SM64 implementation is CPU-bound in the first place. Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, whi

The question here is whether the new, optimized SM64 implementation is CPU-bound in the first place. Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, which is taken up by rasterization, and SM64 was something of a special case—compiled with optimizations turned off due to GCC bugs. After recompiling with optimizations enabled, and maybe after swapping in newer versions of the RSP microcode, my guess is that further improvements to CPU efficiency would have very limited returns.

nstbayless 3y ago
One of the big optimizations Kaze makes is to remove a huge lookup table, which greatly reduces cache/memory usage.
- smcl 3y ago
  That's kinda interesting - I imagine a lookup table was introduced as as an optimisation in the first place. I'm at work and I've had meetings so I haven't seen the linked video (or one of the ones where Kaze patched some functions in to get SM64 running at a constant 60fps) but I'm really keen to do so when meetings subside :) These little self-contained optimisation problems are really appealing, especially when someone smart has done something cool and innovative
epcoa 3y ago
SM64 was compiled with gcc or mipspro?
monocasa 3y ago
> Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, which is taken up by rasterization So a lot of that is overstated, IMO. The N64 was in most cases the first system with a modern memory hierarchy game developers had come across. From my experiments, rdram is dozens of cycles away from the CPU at least, so it's pretty easy to be memory bound without coming close to saturating the little more than ~200MB/sec memory bandwidth the system is capable of sustaining. Remember too the context of the mid 90s, where the previous Nintendo console had single cycle access to main memory[0]. So you'd see crazy stuff like loop unrolling into 16KB of straight code with no branches despite the CPU only having a 16KB instruction cache, guaranteeing that you just flushed everything else. Similarly the GPU seemed really hampered by it's small FIFO at basically the ROP stage which meant that the RMW of both color and z buffers meant a lot of pipeline stalls. I think a lot of the benefit of switching to z sort late in the system's cycle had less to do with overall memory bandwidth, but instead the fact that you don't have to wait on memory just to then blit out the pixel. There's no z to check against, so you know that yes, as soon as the pixel hits the ROP stage, the GPU can just write it to memory (assuming alpha isn't involved). And that's not to shit of the devs in question; it wasn't until probably the last half of the PS2 era that the industry as a whole really internalized how to approach true long tail memory hierarchies. I certainly hadn't despite being able to regurgitate the textbook definitions involved. I guess what I'm saying: hey demo scene coders, there's a bunch of untapped power in this system with weird hangups. : ) [0] Yes, the memory system of the SNES is hard to talk about in broad strokes like this with FastROM/SlowROM, wait states on cart mem accesses, etc, but 'single cycle' is the right order of magnitude for this discussion.
- dietrichepp 3y ago
  Maybe that’s right, memory bandwidth is not the right explanation. But the rasterization itself is still often a big bottleneck, and maybe chalking it up to fill rate limitations is more explicatory. This is based on my limited observations writing my own N64 code and trying different scenes that put different amounts of load on the RDP—varying the load on the RDP was by far the easiest way to get framerate drops. If the CPU load is relatively constant, if the RSP load is relatively constant, then explaining it as running into fill rate limitations seems like a good theory to me. I’m a little skeptical that there’s “huge” untapped power in this system, given the performance of some later games like World Driver Championship (1999). There’s certainly a lot of processing power across the CPU, RSP, and RDP, but given how heterogeneous the system is, and how many weird hangups there are, I have doubts that we’re going to see something much better come out of the demoscene community. You need a lot of appetite for a long-term project in order to make something impressive on the N64, and while we have better emulators and compilers now, it’s hard to compete against someone in the 1990s who got to spend multiple years on the system full-time, with the support of a team and from the console developers. There are some tricks I can imagine using, like spending more time with the RDP in single-cycle mode, or rendering just the fields to get 480i at the cost of 240p, but there are just so many thorny problems to deal with. This is speaking as someone who participates both in the demoscene (I was just in Boston for @party), and N64 homebrew (you can find me on the Discord).
  - phire 3y ago
    In one of Kaze's older videos [1], he tracks both CPU and RCP time over various optimisations. The numbers make it pretty apparent that you can get significant RDP performance gains by reducing the amount of CPU bandwidth and/or improving it's access locality. The N64 is a unified memory system, and memory stalls triggered by the CPU will slow RDP down. The N64's memory controller appears to be very simple. As I understand it, if one sub-component attempts to access a DRAM row that is closed (DRAM rows are 2KB long), then the entire memory controller stalls for ~100ns as the RDRAM chip closes the previous row (writing out any dirty changes) and opens the new row. The controller doesn't appear to do any reordering to optimise access patterns. If multiple components are accessing the same 1MB bank simultaneously, you can hit pathological bad cases were the entire system slows down, as the memory controller is continually stalling for 100ns at a time while the memory chips close and reopen rows. Which is why some games can enable a high resolution mode when the memory expansion pack is present. They often don't need the extra 4MB of ram, but simply being able to strategically spread their data across eight different banks instead of four banks can massively improve performance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rzYnXEQlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rzYnXEQlE
nwallin 3y ago
> The question here is whether the new, optimized SM64 implementation is CPU-bound in the first place. Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, which is taken up by rasterization, Your premise is correct but your conclusion is wrong. The CPU and the "GPU" (the RSP, Reality Signal Processor, was not actually a GPU, but for the purposes of this discussion it's close enough) shared memory bandwidth. If the CPU was using memory bandwidth, it was stealing memory bandwidth from the GPU, slowing down rasterization. The thing to make better was to reduce the total amount of bytes the CPU sends to/from main memory. If you could reduce the number of bytes the CPU sends to/from RAM, that gave the GPU more memory bandwidth, and that would improve GPU performance. CPU time was irrelevant. This changes a lot of what you think about when you think about performance optimization. -Os is substantially faster than -O2, for instance. Loop unrolling is always a loss, even for small fixed size loops. Temporary variables are bad; if you can do a thing by manipulating an existing variable and then de-manipulating it, and that prevents it from spilling onto the stack, that will improve performance. Lots of optimizations a normal programmer and/or the compiler does will make the CPU faster but the extra RAM bandwidth used will slow down the GPU. > After recompiling with optimizations enabled, and maybe after swapping in newer versions of the RSP microcode, my guess is that further improvements to CPU efficiency would have very limited returns. He's actually done this, it is not a hypothetical. The original game got 20FPS. (ballpark) He recompiled with optimizations enabled and was getting 30FPS. (ballpark) He performed a bunch of other code optimizations and got this up to 60FPS. So there were enormous returns still on the table.

nstbayless 3y ago

One of the big optimizations Kaze makes is to remove a huge lookup table, which greatly reduces cache/memory usage.

smcl 3y ago
That's kinda interesting - I imagine a lookup table was introduced as as an optimisation in the first place. I'm at work and I've had meetings so I haven't seen the linked video (or one of the ones where Kaze patched some functions in to get SM64 running at a constant 60fps) but I'm really keen to do so when meetings subside :) These little self-contained optimisation problems are really appealing, especially when someone smart has done something cool and innovative

epcoa 3y ago

SM64 was compiled with gcc or mipspro?

monocasa 3y ago

> Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, which is taken up by rasterization So a lot of that is overstated, IMO. The N64 was in most cases the first system with a modern memory hierarchy game developers had come across. From my experiments, rdram is dozens of cycles away from the CPU at least, so it's pretty easy to be memory bound without coming close to saturating the little more than ~200MB/sec memory bandwidth the system is capable of sustaining. Remember too the context of the mid 90s, where the previous Nintendo console had single cycle access to main memory[0]. So you'd see crazy stuff like loop unrolling into 16KB of straight code with no branches despite the CPU only having a 16KB instruction cache, guaranteeing that you just flushed everything else. Similarly the GPU seemed really hampered by it's small FIFO at basically the ROP stage which meant that the RMW of both color and z buffers meant a lot of pipeline stalls. I think a lot of the benefit of switching to z sort late in the system's cycle had less to do with overall memory bandwidth, but instead the fact that you don't have to wait on memory just to then blit out the pixel. There's no z to check against, so you know that yes, as soon as the pixel hits the ROP stage, the GPU can just write it to memory (assuming alpha isn't involved). And that's not to shit of the devs in question; it wasn't until probably the last half of the PS2 era that the industry as a whole really internalized how to approach true long tail memory hierarchies. I certainly hadn't despite being able to regurgitate the textbook definitions involved. I guess what I'm saying: hey demo scene coders, there's a bunch of untapped power in this system with weird hangups. : ) [0] Yes, the memory system of the SNES is hard to talk about in broad strokes like this with FastROM/SlowROM, wait states on cart mem accesses, etc, but 'single cycle' is the right order of magnitude for this discussion.

dietrichepp 3y ago
Maybe that’s right, memory bandwidth is not the right explanation. But the rasterization itself is still often a big bottleneck, and maybe chalking it up to fill rate limitations is more explicatory. This is based on my limited observations writing my own N64 code and trying different scenes that put different amounts of load on the RDP—varying the load on the RDP was by far the easiest way to get framerate drops. If the CPU load is relatively constant, if the RSP load is relatively constant, then explaining it as running into fill rate limitations seems like a good theory to me. I’m a little skeptical that there’s “huge” untapped power in this system, given the performance of some later games like World Driver Championship (1999). There’s certainly a lot of processing power across the CPU, RSP, and RDP, but given how heterogeneous the system is, and how many weird hangups there are, I have doubts that we’re going to see something much better come out of the demoscene community. You need a lot of appetite for a long-term project in order to make something impressive on the N64, and while we have better emulators and compilers now, it’s hard to compete against someone in the 1990s who got to spend multiple years on the system full-time, with the support of a team and from the console developers. There are some tricks I can imagine using, like spending more time with the RDP in single-cycle mode, or rendering just the fields to get 480i at the cost of 240p, but there are just so many thorny problems to deal with. This is speaking as someone who participates both in the demoscene (I was just in Boston for @party), and N64 homebrew (you can find me on the Discord).
- phire 3y ago
  In one of Kaze's older videos [1], he tracks both CPU and RCP time over various optimisations. The numbers make it pretty apparent that you can get significant RDP performance gains by reducing the amount of CPU bandwidth and/or improving it's access locality. The N64 is a unified memory system, and memory stalls triggered by the CPU will slow RDP down. The N64's memory controller appears to be very simple. As I understand it, if one sub-component attempts to access a DRAM row that is closed (DRAM rows are 2KB long), then the entire memory controller stalls for ~100ns as the RDRAM chip closes the previous row (writing out any dirty changes) and opens the new row. The controller doesn't appear to do any reordering to optimise access patterns. If multiple components are accessing the same 1MB bank simultaneously, you can hit pathological bad cases were the entire system slows down, as the memory controller is continually stalling for 100ns at a time while the memory chips close and reopen rows. Which is why some games can enable a high resolution mode when the memory expansion pack is present. They often don't need the extra 4MB of ram, but simply being able to strategically spread their data across eight different banks instead of four banks can massively improve performance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rzYnXEQlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rzYnXEQlE

nwallin 3y ago

> The question here is whether the new, optimized SM64 implementation is CPU-bound in the first place. Games on the N64 are often limited by memory bandwidth, which is taken up by rasterization, Your premise is correct but your conclusion is wrong. The CPU and the "GPU" (the RSP, Reality Signal Processor, was not actually a GPU, but for the purposes of this discussion it's close enough) shared memory bandwidth. If the CPU was using memory bandwidth, it was stealing memory bandwidth from the GPU, slowing down rasterization. The thing to make better was to reduce the total amount of bytes the CPU sends to/from main memory. If you could reduce the number of bytes the CPU sends to/from RAM, that gave the GPU more memory bandwidth, and that would improve GPU performance. CPU time was irrelevant. This changes a lot of what you think about when you think about performance optimization. -Os is substantially faster than -O2, for instance. Loop unrolling is always a loss, even for small fixed size loops. Temporary variables are bad; if you can do a thing by manipulating an existing variable and then de-manipulating it, and that prevents it from spilling onto the stack, that will improve performance. Lots of optimizations a normal programmer and/or the compiler does will make the CPU faster but the extra RAM bandwidth used will slow down the GPU. > After recompiling with optimizations enabled, and maybe after swapping in newer versions of the RSP microcode, my guess is that further improvements to CPU efficiency would have very limited returns. He's actually done this, it is not a hypothetical. The original game got 20FPS. (ballpark) He recompiled with optimizations enabled and was getting 30FPS. (ballpark) He performed a bunch of other code optimizations and got this up to 60FPS. So there were enormous returns still on the table.