Well I showed the relation of frame time (time per frame) and frame rate (fps), so isn't exactly just different units in question. Both measurements are useful. FPS for general performance and frame time for seeing things better in relation. 1000fps vs 2000fps is just a difference of 0,0005 seconds. Adding another 0,0005 seconds to 0,001 (1000fps) won't halve your fps. Even if you used 0,01 seconds for each frame that would give you 100 fps which is more than needed in most of the cases.
Can you describe your hardware a bit? Laptops may not have a strong GPU. I am not totally convinced that comparing the default shader and a shader returning black color to be a good test. You'll need to compare shaders that actually do something.
From the parts of the code you have showed, there shouldn't be major bottle necks and you have already concluded that on the GPU is the bottle neck.
If you are able to calculate multiple lights in one shader pass you'll also have less pixels to blend additively, which should be beneficial. Have you tried disabling the additive blending and see what kind of effect it has on the performance?
Best regards!
Show differencesHistory of post edits
#1kauna
Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:42 PM
Well I showed the relation of frame time (time per frame) and frame rate (fps), so isn't exactly just different units in question. Both measurements are useful. FPS for general performance and frame time for seeing things better in relation. 1000fps vs 2000fps is just a difference of 0,0005 seconds. Adding another 0,0005 seconds to 0,001 (1000fps) won't halve your fps. Even if you used 0,01 seconds for each frame that would give you 100 fps which is more than needed in most of the cases.
Can you describe your hardware a bit? Laptops may not have a strong GPU. I am not totally convinced that comparing the default shader and a shader returning black color to be a good test. You'll need to compare shaders that actually do something.
From the parts of the code you have showed, there shouldn't be major bottle necks and you have already concluded that on the GPU is the bottle neck.
If you are able to calculate multiple lights in one shader pass you'll also have less pixels to blend additively, which should be beneficial. Have you tried disabling the additive blending and see what kind of effect it has on the blending?
Best regards!
Can you describe your hardware a bit? Laptops may not have a strong GPU. I am not totally convinced that comparing the default shader and a shader returning black color to be a good test. You'll need to compare shaders that actually do something.
From the parts of the code you have showed, there shouldn't be major bottle necks and you have already concluded that on the GPU is the bottle neck.
If you are able to calculate multiple lights in one shader pass you'll also have less pixels to blend additively, which should be beneficial. Have you tried disabling the additive blending and see what kind of effect it has on the blending?
Best regards!