I was in the process of tracking down and eliminating those parts of my C++/OpenGL/GLUT code that were inefficient and slow, and in doing so, I watched my frames per second counter to know if I was actually making progress. I noticed that my frame rate dropped from about 120 to 60 if I maximized the window.
Further experimentation revealed that this was a linear thing, I could change the frame rate by changing the size of the window.
Does this mean that my bottleneck in in the GPU rendering? Surely GPUs these days are more than powerful enough not to notice the difference between a 300x300 and 1920x1080? Or am I asking too much from my graphics card?
The alternative is that there is some bug in my code that is causing the system to slow down on larger renders.
What I am asking is this: is it reasonable to expect a halving of framerate when changing the window size, or is there something very wrong?
Further experimentation revealed that this was a linear thing, I could change the frame rate by changing the size of the window.
Congratulations: You discovered fill rate
Does this mean that my bottleneck in in the GPU rendering?
Yes, pretty much. To be specific the bottleneck is either the bandwidth from/to the graphics memory, or the complexity of the fragment shader, or a combination of both.
Surely GPUs these days are more than powerful enough not to notice the difference between a 300x300 and 1920x1080?
300×300 = 90000
1920×1080 = 2073600
Or in other words: You ask the GPU to fill about 20 times as many pixels. Which means 20 times as much data must be flung around and also be processed.
That drop from 120Hz to 60Hz comes from V-Sync. If you disabled V-Sync you'd find, that your program would probably reach way higher rates than 60Hz for 1920×1080, but for 300×300 it will be something below 180Hz.
The reason for that is simple: When synched to the display vertical retrace, your GPU can "put out" the next frame only at the moment the display is v-syncing. If your display can do 120Hz (like yours as it's obvious) and your rendering takes less time than 1/120s to complete it will make the deadline and your framerate synchronizes to the display. If however drawing a frame takes more then 1/120s, then it will sync with every 2nd frame displayed. If rendering takes more than 1/60s second every 3rd, 1/30s every 4th and so on.
Related
I'm trying to develop some very low-latency graphics applications and am getting really frustrated by how long it takes to draw to screen through OpenGL. Every discussion I find about it online addresses optimizing the OpenGL pipeline, but doesn't get anywhere near the results that I need.
Check this out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbz4bq67cxluhs7/MouseLatency.MOV?dl=0
You probably noticed this before: With a c++ OpenGL app, dragging the mouse around the screen, and drawing the mouse location in OpenGL, the OpenGL lags behind by 3 or 4 frames. Clearly OSX CAN draw [the cursor] to screen with very low latency, but OpenGL is much slower. So let's say I don't need to do any fancy OpenGL rendering. I just want to push pixels to screen somehow. Is there a way for me to bypass OpenGL completely and draw to screen faster? Or is this kind of functionality going to be locked inside the kernel somewhere that I can't reach it?
datenwolf's answer is excellent. I just wanted to add one thing to this discussion regarding triple buffering at the compositor level, since I am very familiar with the Microsoft Windows desktop compositor.
I know you are asking about OS X here, but the implementation details I am going to discuss are the most sensible way of implementing this stuff and I would expect to see other systems work this way too.
Triple buffering as you might enable at the application level adds a third buffer to the swap-chain that is synchronized to refresh. That way of doing triple buffering does add latency, because that third buffer has to be displayed and nothing is allowed to touch it until this happens (this is D3D's mandated behavior -- the behavior and feature itself are undefined in OpenGL); but the way the Desktop Window Manager (Windows) works is slightly different.
The behavior I have seen most drivers implement for desktop composition is frame dropping. Any situation where multiple frames are finished between refreshes, all but 1 of those frames are discarded. You actually get lower latency using a window rather than fullscreen + triple buffering, because it does not block buffer swaps when the third buffer (owned by the compositor) has a finished frame waiting to be displayed.
It creates a whole different set of visual issues if framerate is not reasonably consistent. Technically, pixels belonging to dropped frames have infinite latency, so the benefits from latency reduction done this way might be worthless if you needed every single frame drawn to appear on screen.
I believe you can get this behavior on OS X (if you want it) by disabling VSYNC and drawing in a window. VSYNC basically only serves as a form of frame pacing (trade latency for consistency) in this scenario and tearing is eliminated by the compositor itself regardless what rate you draw at.
Regarding mouse cursor latency:
The cursor in any modern window system will always track with minimum latency. There is literally a feature on graphics hardware called a "hardware cursor," where the driver stores the cursor position and then once per-refresh, has the hardware overlay the cursor on top of whatever is sitting in the framebuffer waiting to be scanned-out. So even if your application is drawing at 30 FPS on a 60 Hz display, the cursor is updated every 16 ms when the hardware cursor's used.
This bypasses all graphics APIs altogether, but is quite limited (e.g. it uses the OS-defined cursor).
TL;DR: Latency comes in many forms.
If your problem is input latency, then you can mitigate that by reducing the number of pre-rendered frames and avoiding triple buffering. I could not begin to tell you how to reduce the number of driver pre-rendered frames on OS X.
Minimize length of time before something shows up on screen
If your problem is the amount of time that passes between executions of your render loop, you would go the other way. Increase pre-rendered frames, draw in a window and disable VSYNC. You may run into a lot of frames that are drawn but never displayed in this scenario.
Minimize time spent blocking (increase FPS); some frames will never be displayed
Pre-rendered frames are a powerful little feature that you do not get control over at the OpenGL API level. It sets up how deeply the driver is allowed to pipeline everything and depending on the desired task you will trade different types of latency by fiddling with it. Many gamers swear by setting this value to 1 to minimize input latency at the cost of overall framerate "smoothness."
UPDATE:
Pre-rendered frames are one reason for your multi-frame delay. Fixing this in a cross-platform way is difficult (it's a driver setting), but if you have access to Fence Sync Objects you can produce the same behavior as forcing this to 1.
I can explain this in more detail if need be, the general idea is that you insert a fence sync after the buffer swap and then wait for it to be signaled before the first command in the next frame is allowed to begin. Performance may take a nose dive, but latency will be minimized since the CPU won't be rendering ahead of the GPU anymore.
There are a number of latencies at play here.
Input event → drawing state latency
In your typical interactive application you have a event loop that usually goes
collect user input
process user input
determine what's to be drawn
draw to the back buffer
swap back to front buffer
With the usual ways in which event–update–display loops are written there's almost no delay between step 5 of the previous and step 1 of the following iteration. which means that steps 2, 3, and 4 operate with data that lags about one frame period behind.
So this is the first source of latency.
Tripple buffering / composition latency
Many graphics pipelines enable triple buffering for smoother display update. Instead of keeping only a back and a front buffer around, there's also a third buffer inbetween. The average rate at which to these buffers is drawn is the display refresh period. The buffers themself are stepped at exactly the display refresh period. So this adds another frame period of latency.
If you're running on a system with a window compositor (which is the default by MacOS X) this adds effectively another buffer stage, so if you've got a double buffer mode it gives you triple buffer and if you had a triple buffer it'd give you a "quad" buffer (quotes here, because quad buffer is a term usually used with stereoscopic rendering).
What can you do about this:
Turn off composition
Windows through the DWM API and MacOS X allow to turn off composition or bypass the compositor.
Reducing input lag
Try to collect and integrate the user input as late as possible (use high resolution sleeps). If you've got only a very simple scene you can push the drawing quite close to the V-Sync deadline; in fact the NVidia OpenGL implementation has a vendor specific extension that allows to sleep until a specific amount of time before the next V-Sync.
If your scene is complex but is separable in parts that require low latency user input and stuff where it doesn't matter so much you can draw the higher latency stuff earlier and only at the very last moment integrate user input into it. Of course if the mouse is used to control the viewing direction, or even worse you're rendering for a VR head mounted display things are going to become difficult.
I'm rendering a top-down, tile-based world, using opengl 3.3, using fully streamed VBO's.
After encountering some lag I did some benchmarking and what I found was horrid!
Let me explain the picture. The first marked square is me running my game using the simplest of shaders. There is no lightning, no nothing! I'm simply uploading 5000 vertices and draw them. My memory load is about 20-30%, cpu-load 30-40%
The second is with lightning. Every light is uploaded as an array to the fragment shader and every fragment processes the lights. load about 40-50%. 100% with 60 lights.
The third is with deferred shading. First I draw normal and diffuse to a FBO, then I render each light to the default FB, while reading from these. load is about 80%. Basically unaffected by amount of lights.
These are the scenes I render:
As you can see, there's nothing fancy. It's retro style. My plan has been to add tons of complexity and still run smooth on low-end computers. Mine is a i7 nvidia 660M, so it shouldn't have a problem.
For comparison I ran warcraft 3 and it took about 50-60% load, 20% memory.
One strange thing I've noticed is that if I disable V-sync and don't call glFinish before swapbuffers, load goes down significantly. However, the clock goes up and heat is produced (53C*).
Now, first I'm wondering if you think this is normal. If not, then what could be my bottleneck? Could it be my streaming VBO? I've tried double buffering and orphaning, but nothing. Doubling the number of sprites basically increases the memory load by 5-10%. the gpu-load remains basically the same.
I'm aware this question can't be easily answered, but I'll provide more details as you require them. Don't want to post my 20000 lines of code here.
Oh, and one more thing... It fluctuates. The draw calls are identical, but the load can go from 2-100%, whenever it feels like it.
UPDATE:
my main loop looks like this:
swapbuffers
renderAndDoGlCalls
updateGameAndPoll
sleep if there's any time left (1/60th second)
repeat.
Without v-sync, glflush or glfinsih, this results in percentage used:
swap: 0.16934400677376027
ren: 0.9929640397185616
upp:0.007698000307920012
poll:0.0615780024631201
sleep: 100.39487801579511
With glFinish prior to swapbuffers:
swap: 26.609977064399082 (this usually goes up to 80%)
ren: 1.231584049263362
upp:0.010266000410640016
poll:0.07697400307896013
sleep: 74.01582296063292
with Vsync it starts well, usually the same as with glFinish, then bam!:
swap: 197.84934791397393
ren: 1.221324048852962
upp:0.007698000307920012
poll:0.05644800225792009
sleep: 0.002562000102480004
And it stays that way.
Let me clarify... If I call swapbuffers right after all opengl calls, my CPU stalls for 70% of update-time, letting me do nothing. This way, I give the GPU the longest possible time to finish the backbuffer before I call the swap again.
You are actually inadvertently causing the opposite scenario.
The only time SwapBuffers causes the calling thread to stall is when the pre-rendered frame queue is full and it has to wait for VSYNC to flush a finished frame. The CPU could easily be a good 2-3 frames ahead of the GPU at any given moment, and it is not the current frame finishing that causes waiting (there's already a finished frame that needs to be swapped in this scenario).
Waiting happens because the driver cannot swap the backbuffer from back to front until the VBLANK signal rolls around (which only occurs once every 16.667ms). The driver will actually continue to accept commands while it is waiting for a swap up until it hits a certain limit (pre-rendered frames on NVIDIA hardware / flip queue size on AMD) worth of queued swaps. Once that limit is hit, GL commands will cause blocking until the back buffer(s) is/are swapped.
You are sleeping at the end of your frames, so no appreciable CPU/GPU parallelism ever develops; in fact you are more likely to skip a frame this way.
That is what you are seeing here. The absolute worst-case scenario is when you sleep for 1 ms too late to swap buffers in time for VBLANK. Your time between two frames then becomes 16.66667 + 15.66667 = 32.33332 ms. This causes a stutter that would not have happened if you did not add your own wait time. The driver could have easily copied the backbuffer from back to front and continued accepting commands in that 1 extra ms you added, but instead it blocks for an additional 15 at the beginning of the next frame.
To avoid this, you want to swap buffers as soon as possible after all commands for a frame have been issued. You have the best likelihood of meeting the VBLANK deadline this way. Reported CPU usage may go up since less time is spent sleeping, but performance should be measured using frame time rather than scheduled CPU time.
VSYNC and the pre-rendered frame limit discussed will keep your CPU and GPU from running out of control and generating huge amounts of heat as mentioned in the question.
Coming from a basic understanding of OpenGL programming, all required drawing operations are performed in a sequence, once per frame redraw. The performance of the hardware dictates essentially how fast this happens. As I understand, a game will attempt to draw as quickly as possible so redraw operations are essentially wrapped in a while loop. The graphics operations (graphics engine) will then be optimised to ensure the frame rate is acceptable for the application.
Graphics hardware supporting Vertical Synchronisation however locks frame rates to the display rate. A first question would be how should a graphics engine interact with the hardware synchronisation? Is this even possible or does the renderer work at maximum speed and the hardware selectively calls up the latest frame, discarding all unused previous frames..?
The motivation for this question is not that I am immediately intending to write a graphics engine, instead am debugging an issue with an existing system where the graphics of a moving scene appear to stutter onscreen. Symptomatically, the stutter is slight when VSync is turned off, when it is turned on either there is a significant and periodic stutter or alternatively the stutter is resolved entirely. I am somewhat clutching at straws as to what is happening or why, want to understand some more background information on graphics systems.
Summarily the question would be on how one is expected to interact with hardware redraw events and if that is even possible. However any additional information would be welcome.
A first question would be how should a graphics engine interact with the hardware synchronisation?
To avoid flicker modern rendering systems use double buffering i.e. there are two color plane buffers and after finishing drawing to one, the display readout pointer is set to the finished buffer plane. This buffer swap can happen synchronized or non-synchronized. With V-Sync enabled the buffer swap will be synchronized and the rendering thread blocks until the buffer swap happened.
Since with double buffering mandates buffer swaps this implicitly introduces a synchronization mechanism. This is how interactive rendering systems lock onto the display refresh.
Symptomatically, the stutter is slight when VSync is turned off, when it is turned on either there is a significant and periodic stutter or alternatively the stutter is resolved entirely.
This sounds like a badly written animation loop that assumes constant framerate locked onto the display refresh rate, based on the assumption that frames render faster than a display refresh interval and the buffer swap can be issued in time for the next retrace to happen.
The only robust way to deal with vertical synchronization is to actually measure the time between frame renderings and advance the rendering loop by that amount of time.
This is a guess, but:
The Problem Isn't Vertical Synchronization
I don't know what OS you're working with, but there are various ways to get information about the monitor and how fast the screen is refreshing (for the purposes of this answer, we'll assume your monitor is somewhat recent and redraws at a rate of 60 Hz, or 60 times every second, or once every 16.66666... milliseconds).
Renderers are usually paired up with an "Logic" side to the application: input, ui calculations, simulation running, etc. etc. It seems like the logic side of your application is running fast enough, but the Rendering side - i.e., the Draw Call as its commonly summed up into - is bounding the speed of your application.
Vertical Synchronization can exacerbate this in that if your Draw Call is made to happen every 16.66666 milliseconds - but it takes much longer than 16.666666 milliseconds - then you perceive a frame rate drop (i.e. frames will "stutter" because they're taking too long to produce a single frame). VSync - and the enabling or disabling thereof - is not something that bottlenecks your code: it just says "hey, since the Hardware is only going to take 1 frame from us every 16.666666 milliseconds, why make more draw calls than just one every 16.66666 milliseconds? As long as we do one draw call once for every passing of this time, our application will look as fluid as possible, and we don't have to waste time making more calls than that!"
The problem with that is that it assumes your code is going to run fast enough to make it in those 16.6666 milliseconds. If it does not, stuttering, lagging, visual artifacts, frozen frames, and other things manifest themselves on screen.
When you turn off VSync, you're telling your Render Call to be called as often as possible, as fast as possible. This may give it some extra wiggle room alongside the Logic call to get a frame rendered, so that when the Hardware Says "I'm gonna take a picture and put it on the screen now!" it's all prettied up, just in time, to get into posture and say cheese! (though by what you say, it barely makes it).
What To Do:
Start by profiling your code. Find out what functions are taking the most time. Judging by the stutter, something in your code is taking longer than is expected and is giving you undesirable performance. Make sure to profile first to find the critical sections of where you're burning away time, and figure out how to keep it correct and make it just as fast. You may want to figure out what's being called in the Render Call and profile the time it takes to complete one cycle of that specifically. Then time the Logic call(s) and see how long it takes to execute those as well. Then, chop away.
Good luck!
In an MFC-program I built myself I have some weird problems with the CPU usage.
I load a point cloud of around 360k points and everything works fine (I use VBO buffers which is the way to do it from what I understand?). I can move it around as I please and notice no adverse effects (CPU usage is very low, GPU does all the work). But then at certain angles and zoom values I see the CPU spike on one of my processors! I can then change the angle or zoom a little and it will go down to around 0 again. This is more likely to happen in a large window than a small one.
I measure the FPS of the program and it's constantly at 65, but when the CPU spike hits it typically goes down around 10 units to 55. I also measure the time SwapBuffers take and during normal operation it's around 0-1 ms. Once the CPU spike hits it goes up to around 20 ms, so it's clear something suddenly gets very hard to calculate in that function (for the GPU I guess?). This something is not in the DrawScene function (which is the function one would expect to eat CPU in a poor implementation), so I'm at a bit of a loss.
I know it's not due to the number of points visible because this can just as easily happen on just a sub-section of the data as on the whole cloud. I've tried to move it around and see if it's related to the depth buffer, clipping or similar but it seems entirely random what angles create the problem. It does seem somewhat repeatable though; moving the model to a position that was laggy once will be laggy when moved there again.
I'm very new at OpenGL so it's not impossible I've made some totally obvious error.
This is what the render loop looks like (it's run in an MFC app via a timer event with 1 ms period):
// Clear color and depth buffer bits
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);
// Draw OpenGL scene
OGLDrawScene();
unsigned int time1 = timeGetTime();
// Swap buffers
SwapBuffers(hdc);
// Calculate execution time for SwapBuffers
m_time = timeGetTime() - time1;
// Calculate FPS
++m_cnt;
if (timeGetTime() - m_lastTime > 1000)
{
m_fps = m_cnt;
m_cnt = 0;
m_lastTime = timeGetTime();
}
I've noticed that (at least a while back), ATI drivers tend to like to spin-wait a little too aggressively, while NVidia drivers tend to be interrupt driven. Technically spin-waiting is faster, assuming you have nothing better to do. Unfortunately, today you probably do have something better to do on another thread.
I think the OP's display drivers may indeed be spin-waiting.
Ok, so I think I have figured out how this can happen.
To begin with the WM_TIMER messages doesn't seem to be generated more often than every 15 ms at best, even when using timeBeginPeriod(1), at least on my computer. This resulted in the standard 65 fps I was seeing.
As soon as the scene took more than 15 ms to render, SwapBuffers would be the limiting factor instead. SwapBuffers seem to busy-wait, which resulted in 100% CPU usage on one core when this happened. This is not something that occurred at certain camera angles, but is a result of a fluidly changing fps depending on how many points were shown on the screen at the time. It just appeared to spike whenever rendering happened to hit a time over 15 ms and started to wait at SwapBuffers instead.
On a similar note, does anyone know of a function like "glReadyToSwap" or something like that? A function that indicates if the buffers are ready to be swapped? That way I could choose another method for rendering with a higher resolution (1 ms for example) and then each ms check if the buffers are ready to swap, if they aren't just wait another ms, so as to not busy-wait.
Is there any way to calculate how much updates should be made to reach desired frame rate, NOT system specific? I found that for windows, but I would like to know if something like this exists in openGL itself. It should be some sort of timer.
Or how else can I prevent FPS to drop or raise dramatically? For this time I'm testing it on drawing big number of vertices in line, and using fraps I can see frame rate to go from 400 to 200 fps with evident slowing down of drawing it.
You have two different ways to solve this problem:
Suppose that you have a variable called maximum_fps, which contains for the maximum number of frames you want to display.
Then You measure the amount of time spent on the last frame (a timer will do)
Now suppose that you said that you wanted a maximum of 60FPS on your application. Then you want that the time measured be no lower than 1/60. If the time measured s lower, then you call sleep() to reach the amount of time left for a frame.
Or you can have a variable called tick, that contains the current "game time" of the application. With the same timer, you will incremented it at each main loop of your application. Then, on your drawing routines you calculate the positions based on the tick var, since it contains the current time of the application.
The big advantage of option 2 is that your application will be much easier to debug, since you can play around with the tick variable, go forward and back in time whenever you want. This is a big plus.
Rule #1. Do not make update() or loop() kind of functions rely on how often it gets called.
You can't really get your desired FPS. You could try to boost it by skipping some expensive operations or slow it down by calling sleep() kind of functions. However, even with those techniques, FPS will be almost always different from the exact FPS you want.
The common way to deal with this problem is using elapsed time from previous update. For example,
// Bad
void enemy::update()
{
position.x += 10; // this enemy moving speed is totally up to FPS and you can't control it.
}
// Good
void enemy::update(elapsedTime)
{
position.x += speedX * elapsedTime; // Now, you can control its speedX and it doesn't matter how often it gets called.
}
Is there any way to calculate how much updates should be made to reach desired frame rate, NOT system specific?
No.
There is no way to precisely calculate how many updates should be called to reach desired framerate.
However, you can measure how much time has passed since last frame, calculate current framerate according to it, compare it with desired framerate, then introduce a bit of Sleeping to reduce current framerate to the desired value. Not a precise solution, but it will work.
I found that for windows, but I would like to know if something like this exists in openGL itself. It should be some sort of timer.
OpenGL is concerned only about rendering stuff, and has nothing to do with timers. Also, using windows timers isn't a good idea. Use QueryPerformanceCounter, GetTickCount or SDL_GetTicks to measure how much time has passed, and sleep to reach desired framerate.
Or how else can I prevent FPS to drop or raise dramatically?
You prevent FPS from raising by sleeping.
As for preventing FPS from dropping...
It is insanely broad topic. Let's see. It goes something like this: use Vertex buffer objects or display lists, profile application, do not use insanely big textures, do not use too much alpha-blending, avoid "RAW" OpenGL (glVertex3f), do not render invisible objects (even if no polygons are being drawn, processing them takes time), consider learning about BSPs or OCTrees for rendering complex scenes, in parametric surfaces and curves, do not needlessly use too many primitives (if you'll render a circle using one million polygons, nobody will notice the difference), disable vsync. In short - reduce to absolute possible minimum number of rendering calls, number of rendered polygons, number of rendered pixels, number of texels read, read every available performance documentation from NVidia, and you should get a performance boost.
You're asking the wrong question. Your monitor will only ever display at 60 fps (50 fps in Europe, or possibly 75 fps if you're a pro-gamer).
Instead you should be seeking to lock your fps at 60 or 30. There are OpenGL extensions that allow you to do that. However the extensions are not cross platform (luckily they are not video card specific or it'd get really scary).
windows: wglSwapIntervalEXT
x11 (linux): glXSwapIntervalSGI
max os x: ?
These extensions are closely tied to your monitor's v-sync. Once enabled calls to swap the OpenGL back-buffer will block until the monitor is ready for it. This is like putting a sleep in your code to enforce 60 fps (or 30, or 15, or some other number if you're not using a monitor which displays at 60 Hz). The difference it the "sleep" is always perfectly timed instead of an educated guess based on how long the last frame took.
You absolutely do wan't to throttle your frame-rate it all depends on what you got
going on in that rendering loop and what your application does. Especially with it's
Physics/Network related. Or if your doing any type of graphics processing with an out side toolkit (Cairo, QPainter, Skia, AGG, ...) unless you want out of sync results or 100% cpu usage.
This code may do the job, roughly.
static int redisplay_interval;
void timer(int) {
glutPostRedisplay();
glutTimerFunc(redisplay_interval, timer, 0);
}
void setFPS(int fps)
{
redisplay_interval = 1000 / fps;
glutTimerFunc(redisplay_interval, timer, 0);
}
Here is a similar question, with my answer and worked example
I also like deft_code's answer, and will be looking into adding what he suggests to my solution.
The crucial part of my answer is:
If you're thinking about slowing down AND speeding up frames, you have to think carefully about whether you mean rendering or animation frames in each case. In this example, render throttling for simple animations is combined with animation acceleration, for any cases when frames might be dropped in a potentially slow animation.
The example is for animation code that renders at the same speed regardless of whether benchmarking mode, or fixed FPS mode, is active. An animation triggered before the change even keeps a constant speed after the change.