Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
wh1sp3rik

Screenquad vs compute shader

This topic is 2143 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I am currently using one compute shader, which calculates everything, i can calculate all deferred lighting with stable cascaded shadow mapping in one pass. I am using UAV texture to save results.

 

Because UAVs are 5.0 only ( RWTextures, also i heard, they are somehow slow becuase it's doing some checks ... ), i am thinking of using screenquad. My question is, is screenquad faster and better solution ? Perhaps i was just overloaded with expectations that CS is cool and fast :)

Also i had a cool feel when i can control thread count :) but pixel shader works same right ? every pixel runs parallel ?

 

thank you for answers, opinions ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

pixelshader tends to be faster for me (~10%), when you don't use anything special from the compute part. but compute shader can be way faster if you use shared memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience a compute shader is always slower unless you're doing something that makes use of a compute shader's advantages (extra flexibility, shared memory, etc.). I have seen the IHV's recommend this as well, and they also recommend against switching between compute and graphics many times during a frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!