On 01/05/2017 06:02 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
05.01.2017, 03:46, "Phil Bouchard" <[email protected]>:
On 01/02/2017 04:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 12/29/2016 04:14 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for the delay...
First I would like to point out this popular Javascript test runs 1.5
faster using Qt over WebKit:
- ~100 FPS on my laptop (x86 @ 2.40GHz) using Chrome (WebKit):
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/html/
- ~150 FPS on my laptop (x86 @ 2.40GHz) using Qt (without QtQuickCompiler):
http://finitetheory.com/personal/phil/JSBenchmark.tar.gz
- I am still waiting for the QtQuickCompiler request to be fulfilled but
anybody who has it already is welcome to try it out and please let us
know the results.
For the record I was able to benchmark the QtQuickCompiler on a x86 @
3.4 GHz and I get: ~250 FPS and without the QtQuickCompiler I get
something similar; which means this is pretty much the maximum speed
that test can get.
AFAIU QtQuickCompiler has nothing to do with memory management, its main
purpose is reduction of start up time and obfuscation of sources.
Ok I assumed that execution time would be affected because the code is
compiled.
Note that measuring FPS above screen refresh rate (usually 60) does not make a
lot of sense, as underlying graphics systems may not preserve it (and if vsync
is enabled, screen refresh rate is a hard upper bound).
You're right but I just wanted to have numbers.
Simon was mentioning that it would be preferable having root_ptr with an
underlying mechanism to select memory pools based on the type allocated
or the frequency of the allocation made. I don't see how it could be
further optimized.
Does anybody have better memory management benchmarks I could focus on?
Thanks a lot,
-Phil
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
