3 ms·
Were they really getting 16000 texture-mapped polys on a DX2?
by WillPostForFood 3y ago
Were they really getting 16000 texture-mapped polys on a DX2?
- qingcharles 3y agoWe will never know. I think I was probably 16 at the time there. With a lot of hindsight and watching some videos lately about hacking the Mario 64 3D routines I wonder if the techniques we thought were fast back then are outdated now? There are better profiling tools available now. I might be able to do it much better. Plus, not all registers are equal on the 486. Using FS and GS to hold data might be slower than pulling it from RAM. How much on chip cache does a 486 have? I don't know.
- jlokier 3y agoIt sounds reasonable to me. Around 1994/5 I was doing perspective-correct texture mapping on a Sun SPARC (with real-time dithering too), an Atari Jaguar and a 486 DX4/100. 16k/sec polys on the DX4 (which is only ~500 at 30fps) sounds modest to me. (We had technically more texture-mapped polys than that, but they had geometric constraints with each other so they weren't all independent polys and shouldn't be counted the same way.) I was surprised, coming from earlier processors including the 386, to find floating-point was sometimes faster for calculations for things like texture UV interpolation, instead of integers (fixed-point), x86 sub-register tricks and hyperbolic-Bresenham or line-at-infinity techniques to avoid division for perspective.
- qingcharles 3y agoThese are the sorts of questions I would like to solve. Were we mistaken in using fixed point for everything? Are there actually faster ways of doing most of these tasks. That recent Mario 64 rewrite has me questioning everything. At least Nintendo's first party developers made the same mistake, and they had the hardware guys right there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKFoGiGlXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKFoGiGlXQ