- From: Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:39:23 +0100
- To: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> > 1. What fraction of those 20% actually still get a GPU accelerated canvas >> vs. software rendered? Batching will be of very little use to the software >> rendered audience, making it an even smaller target market. >> > > ~25% of Chrome users that do not have gpu-accelerated WebGL do have gpu > accelerated 2d canvas. > So 25% of 20%... you are speccing a feature for just 5% of users, correct? (Since batching likely makes no difference when software rendered) > The problem is the long tail of old devices. > These will still disappear with time, just like old Windows 95 machines have. Is your intent to spec a feature that will no longer be necessary in future? > I will post an update to this thread as soon as I have more compelling > performance data. My goal is to demonstrate that a 2d canvas (with batched > drawImage calls) can yield performance characteristics that are > significantly superior to WebGL's for typical 2D sprite-based game use > cases, particularly on mobile platforms. > Here's some existing data: comparing a WebGL renderer ( http://www.scirra.com/demos/c2/renderperfgl/) with canvas2d ( http://www.scirra.com/demos/c2/renderperf2d) in Chrome on a Nexus 5: canvas2d: 360 objects @ 30 FPS webgl: ~17,500 objects @ 30 FPS WebGL is nearly 50x (fifty!) times faster than canvas2d in these results. Do you really consider this not fast enough? And by just how much further do you hope to improve the result?
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 22:39:49 UTC