• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Quat

cbuffer per object or share one cbuffer

5 posts in this topic

Say you have N static objects with different world transforms.  What method is better:

 

1. N constant buffers.  Update once, then just change binding per object.  Pro: No Map/Discard overhead for static objects.  Con: Binding overhead.

 

2. 1 constant buffer.  Map/Discard per object.  Pro: Lower memory presumably (probably not a big deal), only one bind call.  Con: Lots of Map/Discard. 

 

Googling around people seem to say both methods work out about the same performance wise.  Is there any recommendations from AMD/NVIDIA? 

 

I looked at http://gamedevs.org/uploads/efficient-buffer-management.pdf

 

and it says "One for per - object constants (World matrix, dynamic material properties, etc )", but it is not clear is it means exactly one cbuffer, or one cbuffer for every object. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, if you repeatedly map/discard the same buffer, the driver is going to be forced to silently allocate in the background. After all, there's a potentially long delay between draw submission and hardware processing. Better to do it explicitly up front, IMO. Most of the documentation now seems to recommend triple buffering for every dynamic buffer to avoid stalls -- that's a three frame latency. Anything that involves mapping any given buffer at high frequency makes me nervous.

 

That said, I have gotten the impression that the drivers' internal handling for cbuffers is not similar to the other, more traditional buffers. I think that the high frequency Map/Discard pattern is common enough to justify significant optimizations to that code flow inside the driver. But that basically has to involve hundreds of shadow copies internally, so once again I wouldn't do this if at all possible. The memory savings are likely to be an illusion due to the internal copies.

 

(One alternative possibility is that many cbuffers are a waste of memory if the entire buffer is simply copied into the command buffer. I have no evidence to suggest this actually happens, but it might be a reasonable optimization for small high frequency buffers.)

Edited by Promit
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a generic buffer object (one buffer of few megabytes for all objects) to send transform matrices etc - filled once per frame.  I use also a cbuffer for certain parameters (filled once per draw call - ie. multiple times per frame). I haven't observed any performance loss for this configuration with few hundred draw calls per frame. Advantages are that the generic buffer object can hold all the required transform matrices for one frame. A cbuffer might run out of space when drawing lots of skinned meshes for example.

 

Cheers!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends.  If you render 100 objects that all use the same cbuffer and have to update it each time, then you are synching the pipeline with every draw call.  If you have a variety of effects that use different cbuffers (but multiple objects using each one) then that can hide the synching action from one draw call to the next.

 

On the other side, if you have one cbuffer for each object, then you are having to set the cbuffer each draw call.  You have to profile to see if that cost is more or less than the synching effects from above. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0