# OpenGL Still slow with display lists

## Recommended Posts

Hi, the other week i startet a thread about my slow program. It seemed that the problem was that i drew in immidate mode but i discovered its not so. I got the exact same FPS in both immidiate mode and with display lists. When i disabled the textures the FPS only dropped a few values. I just dont know whats going on. Im only drawing 12*8 quads. Main.cpp:
#include "fhInclude.h"

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
SDL_Init( SDL_INIT_VIDEO );

SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_RED_SIZE, 8 );
SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_GREEN_SIZE, 8 );
SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_BLUE_SIZE, 8 );

SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_DEPTH_SIZE, 8 );
SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_DOUBLEBUFFER, 1 );

SDL_Surface *screen;
screen = SDL_SetVideoMode( 800, 600, 24, SDL_OPENGL | SDL_SWSURFACE );

glViewport( 0, 0, 800, 600 );

glMatrixMode( GL_PROJECTION );
glLoadIdentity();
glOrtho( 0.0f, 800.0f, 600.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, -2.0f );

glClearColor( 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f );
glClearDepth( 2.0f );
glEnable( GL_DEPTH_TEST );
glDepthFunc( GL_LEQUAL );

glClear( GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT );

glMatrixMode( GL_MODELVIEW );
glLoadIdentity();
glTranslatef( 200.0f, 300.0f, 1.0f );

//variables for handling FPS (frames per second)
bool done = false;
SDL_Event evt;
int FPS     = 0;
int pastFPS = 0;
int past    = 0;
int currentTime = 0;

//variabels for key-states
int KeyLeft = 0; //0 means key is up, 1 means its down
int KeyRight = 0;
int KeyUp = 0;
int KeyDown = 0;

int SecKeyLeft = 0; //0 means key is up, 1 means its down
int SecKeyRight = 0;
int SecKeyUp = 0;
int SecKeyDown = 0;

int mode = 4;

fhTexture test;
test.Load( "image.jpg" );

fhSlice testSlice;
testSlice.txtr = &test;
testSlice.slice = new fhCoord;
testSlice.slice->x = 0;
testSlice.slice->y = 0;
testSlice.slice->x2 = 800;
testSlice.slice->y2 = 600;
testSlice.amount = 1;

testSlice.Compile();

int x = 0;
int y = 0;

int w = 800;
int h = 600;

int tx = 0;
int ty = 0;

while( 1 )
{
//Handling FPS counter
if( SDL_PollEvent(&evt) )
{
if (evt.type == SDL_QUIT)
done = true;
}

currentTime = SDL_GetTicks();
past = SDL_GetTicks();
FPS++;

//Checking if one second has passed and printing FPS to top of window
if ( currentTime - pastFPS >= 2000 )
{
static char buffer[20] = {0};
sprintf( buffer, "%d FPS", FPS/2 );
SDL_WM_SetCaption( buffer,0 );
FPS = 0;
pastFPS = currentTime;
}

glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT);
glLoadIdentity(); // Reset the view

if (mode == 0)
{
//Checking key-states and changing the projection position
if (KeyLeft) x--;
if (KeyRight) x++;
if (KeyUp) y--;
if (KeyDown) y++;
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
}
else if (mode == 1)
{
if (KeyLeft) w--;
if (KeyRight) w++;
if (KeyUp) h--;
if (KeyDown) h++;
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
}
else if (mode == 2)
{
if (KeyLeft) tx--;
if (KeyRight) tx++;
if (KeyUp) ty--;
if (KeyDown) ty++;
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
}
else if (mode == 3)
{
if (KeyLeft) tx--, w--;
if (KeyRight) tx++, w++;
if (KeyUp) ty--, h--;
if (KeyDown) ty++, h++;
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
test.Draw( x, y, tx, ty, w, h );
}
else if (mode == 4)
{
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);
glCallList(*testSlice.data);

}

SDL_GL_SwapBuffers();

// Poll for events, and handle the ones we care about.
SDL_Event event;
while (SDL_PollEvent(&event))
{
switch (event.type)
{
case SDL_KEYDOWN:
switch (event.key.keysym.sym)
{
case SDLK_LEFT:
KeyLeft = 1;
break;
case SDLK_RIGHT:
KeyRight = 1;
break;
case SDLK_UP:
KeyUp = 1;
break;
case SDLK_DOWN:
KeyDown = 1;
break;
}
break;

case SDL_KEYUP:
switch (event.key.keysym.sym)
{
case SDLK_ESCAPE:
// If escape is pressed, return (and thus, quit)
test.Free();
return 0;
case SDLK_LEFT:
KeyLeft = 0;
break;
case SDLK_RIGHT:
KeyRight = 0;
break;
case SDLK_UP:
KeyUp = 0;
break;
case SDLK_DOWN:
KeyDown = 0;
break;
case SDLK_SPACE:
mode++;
if (mode == 5) mode = 0;
break;
}
break;

case SDL_QUIT:
return(0);
}
}
}

SDL_Quit();
return 0;
}


As i said last time, the code isnt in its best shape as i have been trying to change a lot of stuff...

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
I think your using sdl/opengl software mode.

Try doing:

SDL_SetVideoMode( 800, 600, 24, SDL_OPENGL | SDL_HWSURFACE );

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Nope, that didnt help at all :(

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Display lists are barely any faster than immediate mode. You'll see a much better performance difference if you switch to Vertex Arrays or Vertex Buffer Objects.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
I don't believe the above is true. Most literature says Display Lists are very fast, the downside is the memory overhead for storing all the calls.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by BoderI don't believe the above is true. Most literature says Display Lists are very fast, the downside is the memory overhead for storing all the calls.

I've seen quite a bit of old literature suggesting display lists are fast, but if you're willing to really dig deep down into the documentation on the nvidia developer page, you'll see that for about 2-3 years, they've been trying to nudge people away from using display lists for anything more than speeding up state changes. Here's just one example:

slide 13

I don't exactly know why display lists aren't as fast as vertex buffer objects, but if you benchmark it, I'm sure you'll see a significant difference. In my own experiences, I've found the benefit of display lists to be barely noticeable while the benefit of vertex buffers is usually an order of magnitude.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Yep, it's unfortunate that the documentation at opengl.org is version 1.1 and NeHe also shows display lists first.

Thanks for the reference cwhite.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Actually, for purely static geometry, display lists can still beat vertex buffer objects by a few points. You have to make sure the display lists contain ONLY geometry, though, and compile them with GL_COMPILE -- if you compile with GL_COMPILE_AND_EXECUTE, it won't be fast.

I e, something like:
  set material state (textures, etc)  if don't have display list    GL_COMPILE    glBegin    glVertex ...    glEnd    capture display list  endif  draw display list

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
The real problem is that OpenGL doesn't require hardware to be certified to quite nearly the same extent as DirectX. There are lots of things marked as "implementation specific" or "implementation dependent." For these things, the official OpenGL party line might be that two things should perform similarly, but Nvidia and ATI might have found that setting up their drivers or their hardware a certain way makes common API usages fast and uncommon API usages slow. For deep understanding of performance issues, you really need to sort through documents from the hardware vendors.

And to respond to hplus' insight, all of my previous benchmarking was done on code where the display lists encapsulated both state changes and geometry, so I don't have any intuitive sense for the performance of display lists when they are purely geometric. I would, though, wonder about how a display list could take advantage of the vertex cache the same way a well-optimized mesh with an index buffer can.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627762
• Total Posts
2978972
• ### Similar Content

• Hello! As an exercise for delving into modern OpenGL, I'm creating a simple .obj renderer. I want to support things like varying degrees of specularity, geometry opacity, things like that, on a per-material basis. Different materials can also have different textures. Basic .obj necessities. I've done this in old school OpenGL, but modern OpenGL has its own thing going on, and I'd like to conform as closely to the standards as possible so as to keep the program running correctly, and I'm hoping to avoid picking up bad habits this early on.
Reading around on the OpenGL Wiki, one tip in particular really stands out to me on this page:
For something like a renderer for .obj files, this sort of thing seems almost ideal, but according to the wiki, it's a bad idea. Interesting to note!
So, here's what the plan is so far as far as loading goes:
Set up a type for materials so that materials can be created and destroyed. They will contain things like diffuse color, diffuse texture, geometry opacity, and so on, for each material in the .mtl file. Since .obj files are conveniently split up by material, I can load different groups of vertices/normals/UVs and triangles into different blocks of data for different models. When it comes to the rendering, I get a bit lost. I can either:
Between drawing triangle groups, call glUseProgram to use a different shader for that particular geometry (so a unique shader just for the material that is shared by this triangle group). or
Between drawing triangle groups, call glUniform a few times to adjust different parameters within the "master shader", such as specularity, diffuse color, and geometry opacity. In both cases, I still have to call glBindTexture between drawing triangle groups in order to bind the diffuse texture used by the material, so there doesn't seem to be a way around having the CPU do *something* during the rendering process instead of letting the GPU do everything all at once.
The second option here seems less cluttered, however. There are less shaders to keep up with while one "master shader" handles it all. I don't have to duplicate any code or compile multiple shaders. Arguably, I could always have the shader program for each material be embedded in the material itself, and be auto-generated upon loading the material from the .mtl file. But this still leads to constantly calling glUseProgram, much more than is probably necessary in order to properly render the .obj. There seem to be a number of differing opinions on if it's okay to use hundreds of shaders or if it's best to just use tens of shaders.
So, ultimately, what is the "right" way to do this? Does using a "master shader" (or a few variants of one) bog down the system compared to using hundreds of shader programs each dedicated to their own corresponding materials? Keeping in mind that the "master shaders" would have to track these additional uniforms and potentially have numerous branches of ifs, it may be possible that the ifs will lead to additional and unnecessary processing. But would that more expensive than constantly calling glUseProgram to switch shaders, or storing the shaders to begin with?
With all these angles to consider, it's difficult to come to a conclusion. Both possible methods work, and both seem rather convenient for their own reasons, but which is the most performant? Please help this beginner/dummy understand. Thank you!

• I want to make professional java 3d game with server program and database,packet handling for multiplayer and client-server communicating,maps rendering,models,and stuffs Which aspect of java can I learn and where can I learn java Lwjgl OpenGL rendering Like minecraft and world of tanks

• A friend of mine and I are making a 2D game engine as a learning experience and to hopefully build upon the experience in the long run.

-What I'm using:
C++;. Since im learning this language while in college and its one of the popular language to make games with why not.     Visual Studios; Im using a windows so yea.     SDL or GLFW; was thinking about SDL since i do some research on it where it is catching my interest but i hear SDL is a huge package compared to GLFW, so i may do GLFW to start with as learning since i may get overwhelmed with SDL.
-Questions
Knowing what we want in the engine what should our main focus be in terms of learning. File managements, with headers, functions ect. How can i properly manage files with out confusing myself and my friend when sharing code. Alternative to Visual studios: My friend has a mac and cant properly use Vis studios, is there another alternative to it?

• Both functions are available since 3.0, and I'm currently using glMapBuffer(), which works fine.
But, I was wondering if anyone has experienced advantage in using glMapBufferRange(), which allows to specify the range of the mapped buffer. Could this be only a safety measure or does it improve performance?
Note: I'm not asking about glBufferSubData()/glBufferData. Those two are irrelevant in this case.
• By xhcao
Before using void glBindImageTexture(    GLuint unit, GLuint texture, GLint level, GLboolean layered, GLint layer, GLenum access, GLenum format), does need to make sure that texture is completeness.

• 11
• 10
• 10
• 23
• 14