Jump to content


Halo Performance with Universal Binary


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:02 PM

I wouldn't really call it a bug.  A bug would imply that there was something wrong with the code.  Before 10.3.5 there simply wasn't a method in OpenGL to do the hardware accelerated lens flares that worked with the Halo engine.  I like to think of it as a Performance Enhancing Development, or as the mundane may put it, stero... er an optimization.  ;)  The UB code doesn't seem to have the PED, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#62 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:03 PM

View Postteflon, on January 31st 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

think youve got the wrong stick in your hand... you can choose between none, vertex only, vertex & pixel and Advanced Vertex & Pixel in the mac version quite easily compared with the PC version.
which are from a drop down list when you hold down command upon launch.

What the heck are you trying to say with that first thing is that a personal insult? The second thing is not answering my question that is just stating the obvious. Are you telling me putting vertex only is the same as forcing pixel shader 1.x (1.1 or 1.4) via an argument on PC Halo? Because I get no other option otherwise yet with the same card that I have with the same game on Windows you can put on pixel shader 1.x. I'm thinking perhaps via the command console I might be able to do it but I need to test that theory.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#63 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:19 PM

View PostThinine, on January 31st 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

Because the bug is back obviously. Did you read the thread?

This is a new problem, but I'm not sure if I would categorize it as a bug (the bug from the Panther days was much worse).  If you look and tBC's earlier post and mine, extreme lens flares are causing a performance hit that decrease framerates from ~5-20% (depending on your system specs), which further proves that Macsoft didn't bother to fully-optimize the universal binary.

The obvious bottom line is that you shouldn't turn down lens flares unless you're having serious performance issues.  a2daj was replying to my recommended MacBook Pro settings, but the 2.16 GHz MBP can handle extreme lens flares at those settings just without any apparent performance penalty (hence my objection).
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#64 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:27 PM

The pixel shaders versions are aimed at Direct3D.  OpenGL's official pixel shaders are the fragment programs, which first appeared as an ARB feature in OpenGL 1.5.  They're roughly equivalent to pixel shader 2.0.  Video cards which support pixel shader 2.0 in hardware support ARB fragment programs.  The various other versions of pixel shaders (1.1 and 1.4) were based on vendor specific extensions.  I think 1.1 was equivalent to NVIDIA's register combiners (used in Mac Halo's old NV Shader option) and 1.4 equivalent to the ATI fragment program in the OpenGL extensions.  There's no equivalent to a 1.4 rendering path in Mac Halo.

View PostQuicksilver, on January 31st 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

The obvious bottom line is that you shouldn't turn down lens flares unless you're having serious performance issues.  a2daj was replying to my recommended MacBook Pro settings, but the 2.16 GHz MBP can handle extreme lens flares at those settings just without any apparent performance penalty (hence my objection).

Based on my tests back in September this is wrong.  I saw a 21% performance drop with extreme lens flares.

edit.  Is there some auto consolidation feature in the forum software?  My response to QS was intended to be a separate post.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#65 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:28 PM

View Posta2daj, on January 31st 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

The pixel shaders versions are aimed at Direct3D.  OpenGL's official pixel shaders are the fragment programs, which first appeared as an ARB feature in OpenGL 1.5.  They're roughly equivalent to pixel shader 2.0.  Video cards which support pixel shader 2.0 in hardware support ARB fragment programs.  The various other versions of pixel shaders (1.1 and 1.4) were based on vendor specific extensions.  I think 1.1 was equivalent to NVIDIA's register combiners (used in Mac Halo's old NV Shader option) and 1.4 equivalent to the ATI fragment program in the OpenGL extensions.  There's no equivalent to a 1.4 rendering path in Mac Halo.

According to what I've read about the specs of my ATI card it supports 1.1 with more instructions than 1.4. If it is true that neither paths are available in Mac Halo it's unfortunate when they are available on Windows whether it is because of Direct3D or not. But thanks for the more constructive reply.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#66 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:30 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on January 31st 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

According to what I've read about the specs of my ATI card it supports 1.1 and 1.4. If it is true that neither paths are available in Mac Halo it's unfortunate when they are available on Windows whether it is because of Direct3D or not. But thanks for the more constructive reply.

PS 1.1-3 support on ATI cards is emulated.  It supports 1.4 in hardware.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#67 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 31 January 2007 - 09:58 PM

View Posta2daj, on January 31st 2007, 08:30 PM, said:

PS 1.1-3 support on ATI cards is emulated.  It supports 1.4 in hardware.

I just read the situation with 1.x shaders was fragmented (no pun intended) and it got better with second generation 2.x shaders. Unfortunatly.. my card doesn't support Pixel shader 2.x. Ah well.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#68 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 31 January 2007 - 10:54 PM

View Posta2daj, on January 31st 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

Based on my tests back in September this is wrong.  I saw a 21% performance drop with extreme lens flares.

I have that system right here, and it runs great.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#69 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 February 2007 - 03:04 AM

I just reran the Halo benchmark on my 1st gen MBP 2 GHz with 256 MB VRAM.

800x500 with everything within the in-game prefs maxed out including audio.  No vsync.
Advanced Pixel Shaders w/ Detail Objects and Model Reflections checked.
FSAA off
Model Detail High

Low Lens Flares
58.38 (typically low first run frame rate)
60.22
59.71

Extreme Lens Flares
48.20
48.18
48.11

That's about a 20% drop in performance.  When I did my tests back in Sept they were at 1024x768.  The frame rate numbers weren't exact but as mentioned the performance drop was around 20%, same as these results.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM