That's 100 2D "sprites" in what looks like 32x32 size, at 60 FPS at a 1024x768x24 screen. It wouldn't even be impressive on 15 year old hardware, and as a bench mark it doesn't tell much either. I have to say it's a very shy demonstration of performance.
I suspect something else being responsible for the speed difference: the GFX chip.
It's stated that this demo uses SDL. In case SDL hwardware surfaces are used for the sprites, the beagleboard's omap's OpenGL ES 2.0 compliant graphics unit probably beats the old P4 laptop's graphics chip hands down...
my old P4 laptop had a GFX chip that barely ran heretic II halfway playable for most places in the levels... So the gfx chip in my P4 laptop must have been extremely weak. Maybe same here :)
To jadonk: this is probably due to RISC versus CISC for one part, and probably due to code efficiency on respectively plattform?
For exemple, I used an acorn RiscPC, with StrongARM @200Mhz (yes 200). This old computer has a fast boot time (~ 15s) in comparison to my "old" PC Celeron @1600MHz under windows XP. typicaly 1 mn. All application on RiscPC are very reactive, probably due to code efficiency, code density...
Notebook runs P4 at 1.8GHz and Beagle at 500MHz. The notebook allows on 68% of the CPU load for testsprite application. The rest is used by Xorg. Assumption is that notebook has slower graphic access using xlib whereas beagle writes to fbdev. Source files are identical!
That's 100 2D "sprites" in what looks like 32x32 size, at 60 FPS at a 1024x768x24 screen. It wouldn't even be impressive on 15 year old hardware, and as a bench mark it doesn't tell much either. I have to say it's a very shy demonstration of performance.
RJLeffmann 2 years ago
I suspect something else being responsible for the speed difference: the GFX chip.
It's stated that this demo uses SDL. In case SDL hwardware surfaces are used for the sprites, the beagleboard's omap's OpenGL ES 2.0 compliant graphics unit probably beats the old P4 laptop's graphics chip hands down...
my old P4 laptop had a GFX chip that barely ran heretic II halfway playable for most places in the levels... So the gfx chip in my P4 laptop must have been extremely weak. Maybe same here :)
GentleSavage1 2 years ago
To jadonk: this is probably due to RISC versus CISC for one part, and probably due to code efficiency on respectively plattform?
For exemple, I used an acorn RiscPC, with StrongARM @200Mhz (yes 200). This old computer has a fast boot time (~ 15s) in comparison to my "old" PC Celeron @1600MHz under windows XP. typicaly 1 mn. All application on RiscPC are very reactive, probably due to code efficiency, code density...
Jean-Luc
65022056 3 years ago
Notebook runs P4 at 1.8GHz and Beagle at 500MHz. The notebook allows on 68% of the CPU load for testsprite application. The rest is used by Xorg. Assumption is that notebook has slower graphic access using xlib whereas beagle writes to fbdev. Source files are identical!
tleyrer 3 years ago
Great vid! Any quick explanation on why Beagle runs faster than the PC?
jadonk 3 years ago