• 15
• 15
• 11
• 9
• 10
• ### Similar Content

• By elect
Hi,
ok, so, we are having problems with our current mirror reflection implementation.
At the moment we are doing it very simple, so for the i-th frame, we calculate the reflection vectors given the viewPoint and some predefined points on the mirror surface (position and normal).
Then, using the least squared algorithm, we find the point that has the minimum distance from all these reflections vectors. This is going to be our virtual viewPoint (with the right orientation).
After that, we render offscreen to a texture by setting the OpenGL camera on the virtual viewPoint.
And finally we use the rendered texture on the mirror surface.
So far this has always been fine, but now we are having some more strong constraints on accuracy.
What are our best options given that:
- we have a dynamic scene, the mirror and parts of the scene can change continuously from frame to frame
- we have about 3k points (with normals) per mirror, calculated offline using some cad program (such as Catia)
- all the mirror are always perfectly spherical (with different radius vertically and horizontally) and they are always convex
- a scene can have up to 10 mirror
- it should be fast enough also for vr (Htc Vive) on fastest gpus (only desktops)

Looking around, some papers talk about calculating some caustic surface derivation offline, but I don't know if this suits my case
Also, another paper, used some acceleration structures to detect the intersection between the reflection vectors and the scene, and then adjust the corresponding texture coordinate. This looks the most accurate but also very heavy from a computational point of view.

Other than that, I couldn't find anything updated/exhaustive around, can you help me?

• Hello all,
I am currently working on a game engine for use with my game development that I would like to be as flexible as possible.  As such the exact requirements for how things should work can't be nailed down to a specific implementation and I am looking for, at least now, a default good average case scenario design.
Here is what I have implemented:
Deferred rendering using OpenGL Arbitrary number of lights and shadow mapping Each rendered object, as defined by a set of geometry, textures, animation data, and a model matrix is rendered with its own draw call Skeletal animations implemented on the GPU.   Model matrix transformation implemented on the GPU Frustum and octree culling for optimization Here are my questions and concerns:
Doing the skeletal animation on the GPU, currently, requires doing the skinning for each object multiple times per frame: once for the initial geometry rendering and once for the shadow map rendering for each light for which it is not culled.  This seems very inefficient.  Is there a way to do skeletal animation on the GPU only once across these render calls? Without doing the model matrix transformation on the CPU, I fail to see how I can easily batch objects with the same textures and shaders in a single draw call without passing a ton of matrix data to the GPU (an array of model matrices then an index for each vertex into that array for transformation purposes?) If I do the matrix transformations on the CPU, It seems I can't really do the skinning on the GPU as the pre-transformed vertexes will wreck havoc with the calculations, so this seems not viable unless I am missing something Overall it seems like simplest solution is to just do all of the vertex manipulation on the CPU and pass the pre-transformed data to the GPU, using vertex shaders that do basically nothing.  This doesn't seem the most efficient use of the graphics hardware, but could potentially reduce the number of draw calls needed.

Really, I am looking for some advice on how to proceed with this, how something like this is typically handled.  Are the multiple draw calls and skinning calculations not a huge deal?  I would LIKE to save as much of the CPU's time per frame so it can be tasked with other things, as to keep CPU resources open to the implementation of the engine.  However, that becomes a moot point if the GPU becomes a bottleneck.

• Hello!
I would like to introduce Diligent Engine, a project that I've been recently working on. Diligent Engine is a light-weight cross-platform abstraction layer between the application and the platform-specific graphics API. Its main goal is to take advantages of the next-generation APIs such as Direct3D12 and Vulkan, but at the same time provide support for older platforms via Direct3D11, OpenGL and OpenGLES. Diligent Engine exposes common front-end for all supported platforms and provides interoperability with underlying native API. Shader source code converter allows shaders authored in HLSL to be translated to GLSL and used on all platforms. Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity and is designed to be used as a graphics subsystem in a standalone game engine, Unity native plugin or any other 3D application. It is distributed under Apache 2.0 license and is free to use. Full source code is available for download on GitHub.
Features:
True cross-platform Exact same client code for all supported platforms and rendering backends No #if defined(_WIN32) ... #elif defined(LINUX) ... #elif defined(ANDROID) ... No #if defined(D3D11) ... #elif defined(D3D12) ... #elif defined(OPENGL) ... Exact same HLSL shaders run on all platforms and all backends Modular design Components are clearly separated logically and physically and can be used as needed Only take what you need for your project (do not want to keep samples and tutorials in your codebase? Simply remove Samples submodule. Only need core functionality? Use only Core submodule) No 15000 lines-of-code files Clear object-based interface No global states Key graphics features: Automatic shader resource binding designed to leverage the next-generation rendering APIs Multithreaded command buffer generation 50,000 draw calls at 300 fps with D3D12 backend Descriptor, memory and resource state management Modern c++ features to make code fast and reliable The following platforms and low-level APIs are currently supported:
Windows Desktop: Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL Universal Windows: Direct3D11, Direct3D12 Linux: OpenGL Android: OpenGLES MacOS: OpenGL iOS: OpenGLES API Basics
Initialization
The engine can perform initialization of the API or attach to already existing D3D11/D3D12 device or OpenGL/GLES context. For instance, the following code shows how the engine can be initialized in D3D12 mode:
#include "RenderDeviceFactoryD3D12.h" using namespace Diligent; // ...  GetEngineFactoryD3D12Type GetEngineFactoryD3D12 = nullptr; // Load the dll and import GetEngineFactoryD3D12() function LoadGraphicsEngineD3D12(GetEngineFactoryD3D12); auto *pFactoryD3D11 = GetEngineFactoryD3D12(); EngineD3D12Attribs EngD3D12Attribs; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[0] = 1024; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[1] = 32; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[2] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[3] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.NumCommandsToFlushCmdList = 64; RefCntAutoPtr<IRenderDevice> pRenderDevice; RefCntAutoPtr<IDeviceContext> pImmediateContext; SwapChainDesc SwapChainDesc; RefCntAutoPtr<ISwapChain> pSwapChain; pFactoryD3D11->CreateDeviceAndContextsD3D12( EngD3D12Attribs, &pRenderDevice, &pImmediateContext, 0 ); pFactoryD3D11->CreateSwapChainD3D12( pRenderDevice, pImmediateContext, SwapChainDesc, hWnd, &pSwapChain ); Creating Resources
Device resources are created by the render device. The two main resource types are buffers, which represent linear memory, and textures, which use memory layouts optimized for fast filtering. To create a buffer, you need to populate BufferDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateBuffer(). The following code creates a uniform (constant) buffer:
BufferDesc BuffDesc; BufferDesc.Name = "Uniform buffer"; BuffDesc.BindFlags = BIND_UNIFORM_BUFFER; BuffDesc.Usage = USAGE_DYNAMIC; BuffDesc.uiSizeInBytes = sizeof(ShaderConstants); BuffDesc.CPUAccessFlags = CPU_ACCESS_WRITE; m_pDevice->CreateBuffer( BuffDesc, BufferData(), &m_pConstantBuffer ); Similar, to create a texture, populate TextureDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateTexture() as in the following example:
TextureDesc TexDesc; TexDesc.Name = "My texture 2D"; TexDesc.Type = TEXTURE_TYPE_2D; TexDesc.Width = 1024; TexDesc.Height = 1024; TexDesc.Format = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM; TexDesc.Usage = USAGE_DEFAULT; TexDesc.BindFlags = BIND_SHADER_RESOURCE | BIND_RENDER_TARGET | BIND_UNORDERED_ACCESS; TexDesc.Name = "Sample 2D Texture"; m_pRenderDevice->CreateTexture( TexDesc, TextureData(), &m_pTestTex ); Initializing Pipeline State
Diligent Engine follows Direct3D12 style to configure the graphics/compute pipeline. One big Pipelines State Object (PSO) encompasses all required states (all shader stages, input layout description, depth stencil, rasterizer and blend state descriptions etc.)
To create a shader, populate ShaderCreationAttribs structure. An important member is ShaderCreationAttribs::SourceLanguage. The following are valid values for this member:
SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT  - The shader source format matches the underlying graphics API: HLSL for D3D11 or D3D12 mode, and GLSL for OpenGL and OpenGLES modes. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_HLSL  - The shader source is in HLSL. For OpenGL and OpenGLES modes, the source code will be converted to GLSL. See shader converter for details. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_GLSL  - The shader source is in GLSL. There is currently no GLSL to HLSL converter. To allow grouping of resources based on the frequency of expected change, Diligent Engine introduces classification of shader variables:
Static variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC) are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. Mutable variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_MUTABLE) define resources that are expected to change on a per-material frequency. Examples may include diffuse textures, normal maps etc. Dynamic variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_DYNAMIC) are expected to change frequently and randomly. This post describes the resource binding model in Diligent Engine.
The following is an example of shader initialization:
To create a pipeline state object, define instance of PipelineStateDesc structure. The structure defines the pipeline specifics such as if the pipeline is a compute pipeline, number and format of render targets as well as depth-stencil format:
// This is a graphics pipeline PSODesc.IsComputePipeline = false; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.NumRenderTargets = 1; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RTVFormats[0] = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM_SRGB; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.DSVFormat = TEX_FORMAT_D32_FLOAT; The structure also defines depth-stencil, rasterizer, blend state, input layout and other parameters. For instance, rasterizer state can be defined as in the code snippet below:
// Init rasterizer state RasterizerStateDesc &RasterizerDesc = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RasterizerDesc; RasterizerDesc.FillMode = FILL_MODE_SOLID; RasterizerDesc.CullMode = CULL_MODE_NONE; RasterizerDesc.FrontCounterClockwise = True; RasterizerDesc.ScissorEnable = True; //RSDesc.MultisampleEnable = false; // do not allow msaa (fonts would be degraded) RasterizerDesc.AntialiasedLineEnable = False; When all fields are populated, call IRenderDevice::CreatePipelineState() to create the PSO:
Shader resource binding in Diligent Engine is based on grouping variables in 3 different groups (static, mutable and dynamic). Static variables are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. They are bound directly to the shader object:

m_pPSO->CreateShaderResourceBinding(&m_pSRB); Dynamic and mutable resources are then bound through SRB object:
m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "tex2DDiffuse")->Set(pDiffuseTexSRV); m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "cbRandomAttribs")->Set(pRandomAttrsCB); The difference between mutable and dynamic resources is that mutable ones can only be set once for every instance of a shader resource binding. Dynamic resources can be set multiple times. It is important to properly set the variable type as this may affect performance. Static variables are generally most efficient, followed by mutable. Dynamic variables are most expensive from performance point of view. This post explains shader resource binding in more details.
Setting the Pipeline State and Invoking Draw Command
Before any draw command can be invoked, all required vertex and index buffers as well as the pipeline state should be bound to the device context:
// Clear render target const float zero[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0}; m_pContext->ClearRenderTarget(nullptr, zero); // Set vertex and index buffers IBuffer *buffer[] = {m_pVertexBuffer}; Uint32 offsets[] = {0}; Uint32 strides[] = {sizeof(MyVertex)}; m_pContext->SetVertexBuffers(0, 1, buffer, strides, offsets, SET_VERTEX_BUFFERS_FLAG_RESET); m_pContext->SetIndexBuffer(m_pIndexBuffer, 0); m_pContext->SetPipelineState(m_pPSO); Also, all shader resources must be committed to the device context:
m_pContext->CommitShaderResources(m_pSRB, COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES); When all required states and resources are bound, IDeviceContext::Draw() can be used to execute draw command or IDeviceContext::DispatchCompute() can be used to execute compute command. Note that for a draw command, graphics pipeline must be bound, and for dispatch command, compute pipeline must be bound. Draw() takes DrawAttribs structure as an argument. The structure members define all attributes required to perform the command (primitive topology, number of vertices or indices, if draw call is indexed or not, if draw call is instanced or not, if draw call is indirect or not, etc.). For example:
DrawAttribs attrs; attrs.IsIndexed = true; attrs.IndexType = VT_UINT16; attrs.NumIndices = 36; attrs.Topology = PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST; pContext->Draw(attrs); Tutorials and Samples
The GitHub repository contains a number of tutorials and sample applications that demonstrate the API usage.

AntTweakBar sample demonstrates how to use AntTweakBar library to create simple user interface.

Atmospheric scattering sample is a more advanced example. It demonstrates how Diligent Engine can be used to implement various rendering tasks: loading textures from files, using complex shaders, rendering to textures, using compute shaders and unordered access views, etc.

The repository includes Asteroids performance benchmark based on this demo developed by Intel. It renders 50,000 unique textured asteroids and lets compare performance of D3D11 and D3D12 implementations. Every asteroid is a combination of one of 1000 unique meshes and one of 10 unique textures.

Integration with Unity
Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity through Unity low-level native plugin interface. The engine relies on Native API Interoperability to attach to the graphics API initialized by Unity. After Diligent Engine device and context are created, they can be used us usual to create resources and issue rendering commands. GhostCubePlugin shows an example how Diligent Engine can be used to render a ghost cube only visible as a reflection in a mirror.

• By Yxjmir
I'm trying to load data from a .gltf file into a struct to use to load a .bin file. I don't think there is a problem with how the vertex positions are loaded, but with the indices. This is what I get when drawing with glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, ...):

Also, using glDrawElements gives a similar result. Since it looks like its drawing triangles using the wrong vertices for each face, I'm assuming it needs an index buffer/element buffer. (I'm not sure why there is a line going through part of it, it doesn't look like it belongs to a side, re-exported it without texture coordinates checked, and its not there)
I'm using jsoncpp to load the GLTF file, its format is based on JSON. Here is the gltf struct I'm using, and how I parse the file:
glBindVertexArray(g_pGame->m_VAO);
glDrawElements(GL_LINES, g_pGame->m_indices.size(), GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, (void*)0); // Only shows with GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE
glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, 0, g_pGame->m_vertexCount);
So, I'm asking what type should I use for the indices? it doesn't seem to be unsigned short, which is what I selected with the Khronos Group Exporter for blender. Also, am I reading part or all of the .bin file wrong?
Test.gltf
Test.bin

• That means how do I use base DirectX or OpenGL api's to make a physics based destruction simulation?
Will it be just smart rendering or something else is required?

# OpenGL [Slimdx] D3D Performance Issue In Comparison With Opengl

This topic is 2626 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

I'm currently porting some OpenGL (LWJGL), Java based demo to SlimDX (.NET 4.0, DirectX 11), but I'm running into massive performance problems. The demo uses cascaded shadow maps. I don't think there should be a large difference in performance between DirectX11 and OpenGL.
I tried a few things to find the reason for DirectX performing slower:
The demo loop takes equally long (commenting DrawIndexed out)
The main impact can already be seen when I render the shadow geometry to the screen (instead of a texture array which would be used in the CSM scenario). Just rendering all the model's triangle with a solid color takes 7.1 msecs for DirectX and 4.3 for OpenGL, so it's a way too big difference to ignore.
Currently I'm stuck and have no idea where the penalty could come from.
Here's the shader (Couldn't be any simpler...):
 float4x4 worldViewProj; float4 VS( float4 pos : POSITION ) : SV_POSITION { float4 output; output = mul(pos, worldViewProj); return output; } float4 PS( ) : SV_Target { return float4(1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0); } technique10 Render { pass P0 { SetGeometryShader( 0 ); SetVertexShader( CompileShader( vs_5_0, VS() ) ); SetPixelShader( CompileShader( ps_5_0, PS() ) ); } } 

And here's the code using the shader:
 public void Load(Device device) { var bytecode = ShaderBytecode.CompileFromFile("ZOnly.fx", "fx_5_0", ShaderFlags.WarningsAreErrors, EffectFlags.None); effect = new Effect(device, bytecode); technique = effect.GetTechniqueByIndex(0); pass = technique.GetPassByIndex(0); ShaderSignature signature = pass.Description.Signature; inputLayout = new InputLayout(device, signature, new[] { new InputElement("POSITION", 0, SlimDX.DXGI.Format.R32G32B32_Float, 0, 0), }); var solidParentOp = new BlendStateDescription(); solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].BlendOperationAlpha = BlendOperation.Add; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].BlendOperation = BlendOperation.Add; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].DestinationBlend = BlendOption.Zero; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].DestinationBlendAlpha = BlendOption.Zero; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].SourceBlend = BlendOption.One; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].SourceBlendAlpha = BlendOption.One; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].RenderTargetWriteMask = ColorWriteMaskFlags.All; solidParentOp.RenderTargets[0].BlendEnable = false; solidParentOp.AlphaToCoverageEnable = false; solidParentOp.IndependentBlendEnable = false; solidBlendState = BlendState.FromDescription(device, solidParentOp); var dssdSolid = new DepthStencilStateDescription { IsDepthEnabled = true, IsStencilEnabled = false, DepthWriteMask = DepthWriteMask.All, DepthComparison = Comparison.Less }; depthStencilState = DepthStencilState.FromDescription(device, dssdSolid); var rsDesc = new RasterizerStateDescription { FillMode = FillMode.Solid, CullMode = CullMode.Back, IsScissorEnabled = false, IsFrontCounterclockwise = false, DepthBias = 0, SlopeScaledDepthBias = 0, IsMultisampleEnabled = false, IsDepthClipEnabled = false, IsAntialiasedLineEnabled = false }; rasterizerState = RasterizerState.FromDescription(device, rsDesc); MVPVariable = effect.GetVariableByName("worldViewProj").AsMatrix(); } public void Init(Device device) { device.ImmediateContext.OutputMerger.DepthStencilState = depthStencilState; device.ImmediateContext.OutputMerger.BlendState = solidBlendState; device.ImmediateContext.Rasterizer.State = rasterizerState; device.ImmediateContext.InputAssembler.InputLayout = inputLayout; device.ImmediateContext.InputAssembler.PrimitiveTopology = SlimDX.Direct3D11.PrimitiveTopology.TriangleList; device.ImmediateContext.InputAssembler.SetVertexBuffers(0, new VertexBufferBinding(BasicVertexData.GlobalVertexBuffer, BasicVertexData.GlobalVertexStride, 0)); device.ImmediateContext.InputAssembler.SetIndexBuffer(BasicVertexData.GlobalIndexBuffer, SlimDX.DXGI.Format.R32_UInt, 0); } public void UpdateParams(Device device, MatricesInfo matricesInfo, Light light) { MVPVariable.AsMatrix().SetMatrix(matricesInfo.getMVP()); pass.Apply(device.ImmediateContext); } public void Render(Device device, BasicVertexData bvd) { if (bvd.Indices.Length > 0) { device.ImmediateContext.DrawIndexed(bvd.Indices.Length, bvd.StartIndex, 0); } } 
Load is called only once during intialisation. Init is called once per frame, UpdateParams whenever the MVP-matrix changes and Render for each object.

Do you have any idea what I'm missing here? (I guess it's as simple as forgetting to disable alpha testing, preventing early-z rejection, disabling back face culling)

Thanks,
Stefan

##### Share on other sites

The main impact can already be seen when I render the shadow geometry to the screen (instead of a texture array which would be used in the CSM scenario). Just rendering all the model's triangle with a solid color takes 7.1 msecs for DirectX and 4.3 for OpenGL, so it's a way too big difference to ignore.

Are we talking CPU or GPU performance here? How exactly are you measuring the time difference?

##### Share on other sites

Are we talking CPU or GPU performance here? How exactly are you measuring the time difference?

GPU performance. As I said the performance is comparable when the rendering call itself (e.g. DrawIndexed) is commented out. The shader does in this case nothing more than render many red triangles directly on the screen.
The measurement happens from frame to frame in the render loop where the current time is stored to a member and an averaged difference is computed. (Ah yes - and VSync is not enabled).

EDIT: Just to make sure I just double checked my FPS and durations with the results of FRAPS and my measurement is fine.

Yours,
Stefan

##### Share on other sites
Well you can't accurately profile GPU or CPU performance just by measuring your frame time. That will just tell you your overall performance, which is basically a max of your CPU time and your GPU time. Ideally you want to use PIX or another GPU tool that will perform the necessary GPU timing so that you can better isolate your bottleneck. It's really easy to do in PIX...just create a new experiment targeting your executable with the "Statistics for each frame" option checked, and then let it run for a little while. Then when you're done, the timeline view up top will show a graph of CPU time and GPU time for each frame.

Either way 7.3ms (or even 4.3ms for that matter) sounds like a realllllly long time just for some depth-only rendering, unless you're doing this on a very weak GPU.

##### Share on other sites

Well you can't accurately profile GPU or CPU performance just by measuring your frame time. That will just tell you your overall performance, which is basically a max of your CPU time and your GPU time. Ideally you want to use PIX or another GPU tool that will perform the necessary GPU timing so that you can better isolate your bottleneck. It's really easy to do in PIX...just create a new experiment targeting your executable with the "Statistics for each frame" option checked, and then let it run for a little while. Then when you're done, the timeline view up top will show a graph of CPU time and GPU time for each frame.

Either way 7.3ms (or even 4.3ms for that matter) sounds like a realllllly long time just for some depth-only rendering, unless you're doing this on a very weak GPU.

You're certainly right that the measured time is the overall performance, still commenting out the draw calls shows that the rendering causes the difference between DirectX and OpenGL (and since the rendering takes much more time I'd say it's not a CPU performance problem).

I'm rendering 1,673,088 triangles per frame, I don't think that this is acutally very bad for a laptop (if I'm not completely wrong that's about 400 MTris / sec with OpenGL)

Using PIX I didn't give me new information. I see that per frame there are 1104 DIP calls, no DPUP, DIPUP, Locks, 12 SetRenderState calls, 12 SetVertexShader calls, 12 SetPixelShader calls, 0 SetRenderTarget calls, 0 SetTextureStageState, 0 Misc FF state changes and the time spent in DIP calls is 281373.1.

Any ideas?

##### Share on other sites
Commenting out the Draw call isn't a good performance experiment, since Draw calls are a major source of API/Driver overhead on the CPU. In fact with such a high number of DIP calls, it's very likely that the driver overhead is what's slowing you down. Did you look at the graph in the timeline view in PIX to see what your CPU/GPU timings are for each frame? That was the important part.

##### Share on other sites

Commenting out the Draw call isn't a good performance experiment, since Draw calls are a major source of API/Driver overhead on the CPU. In fact with such a high number of DIP calls, it's very likely that the driver overhead is what's slowing you down. Did you look at the graph in the timeline view in PIX to see what your CPU/GPU timings are for each frame? That was the important part.

I've attached a screenshot from the timeline.
[attachment=976:pix_timeline.jpg]
What conclusions do you draw from that picture? Am I right with the interpretation, that the GPU has quite a lot of idle time that could be used for rendering?

Another thing I noticed is that the performance difference depends on the way the depth values are stored.
In the first case "depth texture" I'm rendering to a depth texture and have no color texture bound. The second case "color texture" I have a depth and color target and render the linear depth value to the color channel and use that color texture as a shader resource.
In the "depth texture" case the difference between OpenGL and DirectX is really large (128 FPS for OpenGL vs. 89 FPS for DirectX). OpenGL uses texture array with the format GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT32F and DirectX uses R32_Typeless for the texture2d, D32_Float for the DepthStencilView and R32_Float for the ShaderResourceView.
In the "color texture" case both are much closer (95 FPS in OpenGL vs. 89 in DirectX). OpenGL uses a GL_R32F color texture array and a single GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT32F depth rendertarget. DirectX11 a R32_Float texture array (same format for the RenderTarget and ShaderResourceView) and a single D32_Float texture for the depth buffer.

What can be seen is that OpenGL slows down quite a bit when I use a color texture for the depth value (somehow expected), whereas it has no impact in DirectX!?!

##### Share on other sites
The idle time indicates that your CPU is taking much longer than the GPU to finish a frame, and is idling while waiting for more CPU commands. In other words, you're heavily CPU-bound. I would suspect that the large number of Draw calls is what's slowing you down. You can try running a profiler to ensure that you're actually spending lots of time in DX functions.

##### Share on other sites

The idle time indicates that your CPU is taking much longer than the GPU to finish a frame, and is idling while waiting for more CPU commands. In other words, you're heavily CPU-bound. I would suspect that the large number of Draw calls is what's slowing you down. You can try running a profiler to ensure that you're actually spending lots of time in DX functions.

First off all: Thanks a lot for your patience, MJP!
I've modified the model such that it consists of a single mesh only. Since the scene consists of three of those models and I'm rendering 4 CSM-Layers + 1 Color Pass I'm now at 15 DIP calls.
Instead of 89 FPS I get now 90,9 FPS. The PIX timeline is attached. (For OpenGL the FPS go up from 128 to 136.)
The empty demo loop (only DIP calls commented out) takes 0,5 msecs.

All in all I'm just puzzled. The demo renders just as fast as before, but now the GPU is never idle. The GPU frames look very strange and appear to overlap in the timeline view (I've overlayed frame 148 and 150 in the screenshot):
[attachment=989:pix_timeline2.jpg]

The GPU duration in the event view looks more sensible (ranging from 9623084 to 12773134).
Now I'm lost. The FPS don't show much difference, such that reducing the DIP calls and reducing materials doesn't help. The CPU bound issue is gone but nothing is gained.
The demo loop allows for 2000 FPS, so I can't see that this would cause any blocking. Any ideas?