Jump to content




ComputerCraft Benchmarking (Emulators and Minecraft)


31 replies to this topic

#21 Wojbie

  • Members
  • 631 posts
  • LocationKinda lost

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:59 PM

View PostGravityScore, on 03 February 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

View Postwojbie, on 03 February 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

It could be effect of all the debug code that probably got left inside this version. I don't think any changes could make this kind of difference.

I was thinking it was due to the window API that all drawing in advanced computers is now wrapped in. Because this is Lua side it would likely be much slower than Java side, probably causing the terrible slowness.

You are right - did 2 test on pr0 with windowing api(multishell) and without it(tlco-ed out to bios and ran normal shell to test that)
Both tests done on Portable Computer cause it was handy that way

This is with windowing api working:
Posted Image
And this is with it gone
Posted Image

Soo if you are displaying a lot of stuff fast get rid of Windows :D
CC more like real world every day.

#22 Engineer_Nalfar

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 03 February 2014 - 07:27 PM

If the new terminal emulation layer was java side not lua it might run smother?

Examle
local current screen = getTerminalWindow() -- gets current terminal object.
local newScreen = getNewTerminalWindow()
newScreen:write("Hello")
newScreen:setCursorPos(1,1)
newScreen:display() -- activates the screen to be displayed.


That way the heavy lifting can be done by java witch does a quicker job of buffering screen content.

#23 ingie

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • LocationMannin

Posted 03 February 2014 - 07:54 PM

it's probably a balance though isn't it... most CC computers aren't used for high-speed graphics... so a graphical performance test is interesting, but perhaps not applicable in practice. To place the code more tightly coupled into the java would mean that the heap always needs that code even if you're not doing graphical output... with it being a lua side api, then you're only increasing the chunk-space in lua if required.

- though i say this from vaguely educated postulation, not any knowledge of either dan's reasoning or methodology, or indeed lua chunks :)
... but it seems plausible as a reason, it's at least an excuse, so hey i'm saying it :)

#24 theoriginalbit

    Semi-Professional ComputerCrafter

  • Moderators
  • 7,332 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 03 February 2014 - 08:10 PM

View Postnutcase84, on 02 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Why Java 6?
Oracle hasn't released Java 7 to OS X yet — it's still dev beta — 'cause they're inferior to Sun. Either Oracle — or Apple — is still rolling out updates for Java 6 though with security fixes and such.
If an OS X user wants Java 7 its a manual download and install, and then most of the time an environment fix 'cause it Java programs stop working, especially LWJGL it really doesn't like Java 7, I had to go and download the latest LWJGL to put into Minecraft so that I could play it.

#25 awsmazinggenius

  • Members
  • 930 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 03 February 2014 - 08:14 PM

Because oeed tested this on his OS, here is a test on mine:

I ran this on the computer, wirelessly connected through to the monitor through GeniusStream. I opened a full screen (as you can press F3 to see a list of all open things in a scrollable list) CraftOS prompt on the remote monitor, then I just did pastebin run Ef4SdA3k. With CC 1.6 pr0, here is the result (note that the program runs on the sending computer (surrounded in peridot) and every monitor call is sent over to the remote computer. This still needs optimization.)
Posted Image

EDIT: Damn ninja. And this was on the aforementioned laptop, mc 1.6.4

Edited by awsmazinggenius, 03 February 2014 - 08:14 PM.


#26 GravityScore

  • Members
  • 796 posts
  • LocationLand of Meh

Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:48 AM

View Postwojbie, on 03 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

You are right - did 2 test on pr0 with windowing api(multishell) and without it(tlco-ed out to bios and ran normal shell to test that)
Both tests done on Portable Computer cause it was handy that way

This is with windowing api working:
[snip]

And this is with it gone
[snip]

Soo if you are displaying a lot of stuff fast get rid of Windows :D
CC more like real world every day.

Wow that's an incredible difference! I feel like someone should put this on the bug report thread, but I don't see much that can be done about it (apart from maybe moving it to Java, but I don't think dan will do that).

Edited by GravityScore, 04 February 2014 - 02:48 AM.


#27 oeed

    Oversimplifier

  • Members
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:16 AM

View PostGravityScore, on 04 February 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

View Postwojbie, on 03 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

You are right - did 2 test on pr0 with windowing api(multishell) and without it(tlco-ed out to bios and ran normal shell to test that)
Both tests done on Portable Computer cause it was handy that way

This is with windowing api working:
[snip]

And this is with it gone
[snip]

Soo if you are displaying a lot of stuff fast get rid of Windows :D
CC more like real world every day.

Wow that's an incredible difference! I feel like someone should put this on the bug report thread, but I don't see much that can be done about it (apart from maybe moving it to Java, but I don't think dan will do that).

Done.

http://www.computerc...post__p__163468

I think that based on awsmazinggenius' post there is probably quite a bit that could be changed, clearly there are ways to use a buffer without shocking speed (not that I can really talk). I think the main problem with OneOS is the fact that it uses a buffer and only draws on yield. I'll be looking in to it.

#28 1lann

  • Members
  • 516 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:44 AM

View PostFreack100, on 03 February 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

I think I just broke the program xDD
*snip*

That's like impossible... like literally impossible xD. The version gravs used and that is posted (which he is aware is out-of-date but was too lazy to update his results with) should have all of the results subtracted by 1 (and the total subtracted by 4), because in the test are sleeps totalling up to 1 second per test. So it's impossible with the version gravs is using to score anything below 1 second, so idk how you accomplished that xD.

Edited by 1lann, 04 February 2014 - 04:45 AM.


#29 oeed

    Oversimplifier

  • Members
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 04 February 2014 - 05:34 AM

View Post1lann, on 04 February 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

View PostFreack100, on 03 February 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

I think I just broke the program xDD
*snip*

That's like impossible... like literally impossible xD. The version gravs used and that is posted (which he is aware is out-of-date but was too lazy to update his results with) should have all of the results subtracted by 1 (and the total subtracted by 4), because in the test are sleeps totalling up to 1 second per test. So it's impossible with the version gravs is using to score anything below 1 second, so idk how you accomplished that xD.
Well, can't argue with that.

Also, I see you've left South Korea now :P

Edited by oeed, 04 February 2014 - 05:34 AM.


#30 theoriginalbit

    Semi-Professional ComputerCrafter

  • Moderators
  • 7,332 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 04 February 2014 - 05:44 AM

View Postoeed, on 04 February 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Also, I see you've left South Korea now :P
*cough* stalker. :P

#31 YoYoYonnY

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 01:06 PM

Posted Image
Uhm... Maybe its time to write a fix? If you can...

#32 MKlegoman357

  • Members
  • 1,170 posts
  • LocationKaunas, Lithuania

Posted 01 May 2014 - 06:29 PM

View PostYoYoYonnY, on 01 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

-snip-
Uhm... Maybe its time to write a fix? If you can...

Either your computer or the new window API is too slow to run this.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users