-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 2015-02-12 um 08:45 schrieb Stefan Dösinger:
Am 2015-02-11 um 23:56 schrieb Matteo Bruni:
It's probably hard to measure and not going to really matter in practice but toggling the depth clamping (where supported) might be slightly faster than updating the projection matrix. I'll try to patch my drawprim overhead tester to test this. Fwiw, I cannot see any performance difference between ARB_depth_clamp and the projection matrix approach in my modified test program.
What I did: Set a POSITIONT vertex while(running) { for(i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { set_rs(ZENABLE, TRUE); draw(); set_rs(ZENABLE, FALSE); draw(); set_rs(ZENABLE, TRUE); draw(); set_rs(ZENABLE, FALSE); draw(); set_rs(ZENABLE, TRUE); draw(); set_rs(ZENABLE, FALSE); draw(); } present(); } I.e., I hit the worst case for the new approach. With ARB_depth_clamp this test program runs at 89.5 fps, with matrices at 89.2. There seems to be a general up and down of +/- 5 fps. Interestingly windows runs this test program at 58 fps. I tested this on Nvidia. I can also test it on r600g if desired, but I don't really expect it to matter. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU3GucAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwpSYP/RlBVxtPygA4fOcbq5/1baV5 Fo/YTjqBgrPq4Y63MKPGEBu6nEi+TrP1UWZyEeh+cYsbgG8pgzHlwNB1aWfeENOv /OkWV1FxfJSJ/rEPZ3mYX0ZSKl2Rwm0LXuxjJR4A1KKkOFTy2sdKcZ/srckQFQM3 IQ7oE59S8Zi7s1YEiVAju4rRhBN1s7f3eiynJ6BhhKNEfdZz9u/WmdhTM0pOC21y NvHMVE/9Vx7VdlWU+gP6vdEMFg14rKoU22lRidcg8s2qiVqtOih4tI6CBN3qdEVw OXqC9AhDg9f7RHm0SQRWE+Oei8cfUAIg9vuHrXW8gWbXKnUkgC782O/siZ4UUZ9Q CEUmURZ2Y9WHtIj0LKu1DjJMdIsn+/iHBSXDkIoO+jvcJ4ckeN2kM4D7XS43/dgE a0vCEMO0OktuLYnRFNc9DRMBifQ5UBzx/yTNvEOcsqvqXW/Jts0GBPd631qYNA/t XEe+XtMQLutOuTyEb8Y2MZRSmXUPLzcoia4rjgN5HEoM/hGZ0j+2xlXVx13YIBFB zzZrJFYicZmUvx+BYtMQ58QWbPl58eJx4THkssdxyyQ3Yse6RnYNqs8o1Zbp3DqZ VFUE2HbVlcQK5/UKIak1Eat3urGcvqcTr3T/OmdWV+Dcqy6dSLpHdC7R5uauMFdr lbjJvudMKUtba2PgMwap =Cev8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----