| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> One thing I've forgotten to mention in my previous replies is that it's really
> unfair to compare the performance of an editor (MBC) with a viewer (LDView),
> even if both are running on the same machine. A viewer doesn't have to worry
> about adding, removing, and moving pieces on the fly, so in theory can make
> optimizations that can't be made in an editor.
>
> As a consequence, despite how my previous posts may have appeared, I'm really
> not trying to compare the performance between the two. However, having said
> that, many optimizations are appropriate to both an editor and a viewer.
Since we seem to be talking about performance measurements, what do
you think about comparing the the current yardstick: l3lab? On my fairly
old 500Mhz PC with a TNT video card l3lab prints this for stats.
Timing:
Load: 1222 ms
Draw: 8442 ms
The load time seems pretty zippy compared to what we're hearing in this
thread. Is that because creating display lists in video memory is really
slow? The l3lab file loading source code is available. Maybe there's
an idea or two in there.
Travis, can you see if l3lab is any faster on your more modern hardware?
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> > One thing I've forgotten to mention in my previous replies is that it's really
> > unfair to compare the performance of an editor (MBC) with a viewer (LDView),
> > even if both are running on the same machine. A viewer doesn't have to worry
> > about adding, removing, and moving pieces on the fly, so in theory can make
> > optimizations that can't be made in an editor.
> >
> > As a consequence, despite how my previous posts may have appeared, I'm really
> > not trying to compare the performance between the two. However, having said
> > that, many optimizations are appropriate to both an editor and a viewer.
>
> Since we seem to be talking about performance measurements, what do
> you think about comparing the the current yardstick: l3lab? On my fairly
> old 500Mhz PC with a TNT video card l3lab prints this for stats.
>
> Timing:
> Load: 1222 ms
> Draw: 8442 ms
>
> The load time seems pretty zippy compared to what we're hearing in this
> thread. Is that because creating display lists in video memory is really
> slow? The l3lab file loading source code is available. Maybe there's
> an idea or two in there.
>
> Travis, can you see if l3lab is any faster on your more modern hardware?
On my laptop with a Pentium-M 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9000:
Timing:
Load: 3325 ms
Draw: 3164 ms
On my desktop with a P4 3Ghz, 1GB DDR400 RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB:
Timing:
Load: 2062 ms
Draw: 1204 ms
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Don Heyse wrote:
> > Since we seem to be talking about performance measurements, what do
> > you think about comparing the the current yardstick: l3lab? On my fairly
> > old 500Mhz PC with a TNT video card l3lab prints this for stats.
> >
> > Timing:
> > Load: 1222 ms
> > Draw: 8442 ms
>
>
> On my laptop with a Pentium-M 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9000:
> Timing:
> Load: 3325 ms
> Draw: 3164 ms
>
> On my desktop with a P4 3Ghz, 1GB DDR400 RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB:
> Timing:
> Load: 2062 ms
> Draw: 1204 ms
Well, for what it's worth, here are my numbers on a P4 2.4GHz, ATI 9700 Pro
128MB:
Load: 3437 ms
Draw: 1907 ms
It's worth noting that if I load the file a second time, the load portion drops
to 313 ms, so the only way to be sure that disk cache isn't playing havoc with
your numbers is to reboot and do it first thing.
--Travis Cobbs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.mac, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > Since we seem to be talking about performance measurements, what do
> > > you think about comparing the the current yardstick: l3lab? On my fairly
> > > old 500Mhz PC with a TNT video card l3lab prints this for stats.
> > >
> > > Timing:
> > > Load: 1222 ms
> > > Draw: 8442 ms
> >
> >
> > On my laptop with a Pentium-M 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9000:
> > Timing:
> > Load: 3325 ms
> > Draw: 3164 ms
> >
> > On my desktop with a P4 3Ghz, 1GB DDR400 RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB:
> > Timing:
> > Load: 2062 ms
> > Draw: 1204 ms
>
> Well, for what it's worth, here are my numbers on a P4 2.4GHz, ATI 9700 Pro
> 128MB:
>
> Load: 3437 ms
> Draw: 1907 ms
>
> It's worth noting that if I load the file a second time, the load
> portion drops to 313 ms, so the only way to be sure that disk cache
> isn't playing havoc with your numbers is to reboot and do it first
> thing.
Ah, that explains my mysteriously low load time. I did the measurement
on the 2nd try.
So, I'd say anything drawing in the fps range is certainly getting some
benefit from the opengl acceleration.
Don
|
|
|
