I would add that neither JOGL nor LWJGL have these issues. Yes, I know they are somewhat different "animals", but the point is, clearly *Java* is NOT the cause.
> On 21 Jul 2016, at 20:07, Dr. Michael Paus <m...@jugs.org> wrote: > > Hi Felix, > I have written various tests like the ones you use in FXMark and I have > obtained similar results. I have even tried to substitute 2D shapes by > using 3D MeshViews in the hope that this would give better performance > but the results were not that good. Of course all this depends on the > specific test case but in general I see that a JavaFX application which > makes heavy use of graphics animations is completely CPU-bounded. > The maximum performance is reached when one CPU/Core is at 100%. > The performance of your graphics hardware seems to be almost irrelevant. > I could for example run four instances of the same test with almost the > same performance at the same time. In this case all 4 cores of my machine > were at 100%. This proves that the graphics hardware is not the limiting > factor. My machine is a MacBook Pro with Retina graphics and a dedicated > NVidia graphics card which is already a couple of years old and certainly > not playing in the same league as your high-power card. > I myself have not yet found a way to really speed up the graphics performance > and I am a little bit frustrated because of that. But it is not only the > general > graphic performance which is a problem. There are also a lot of other pitfalls > into which you can stumble and which can bring your animations to a halt > or even crash your system. Zooming for example is one of these issues. > > I would like to have some exchange on these issues and how to best address > them but my impression so far is that there are only very view people > interested > in that. (I hope someone can prove me wrong on this :-) > > Michael > >> Am 20.07.16 um 04:14 schrieb Felix Bembrick: >> Having written and tested FXMark on various platforms and devices, one >> thing has really struck me as quite "odd". >> >> I started work on FXMark as a kind of side project a while ago and, at the >> time, my machine was powerful but not "super powerful". >> >> So when I purchased a new machine with just about the highest specs >> available including 2 x Xeon CPUs and (especially) 4 x NVIDIA GTX Titan X >> GPUs in SLI mode, I was naturally expecting to see significant performance >> improvements when I ran FXMark on this machine. >> >> But to my surprise, and disappointment, the scene graph animations ran >> almost NO faster whatsoever! >> >> So then I decided to try FXMark on my wife's entry-level Dell i5 PC with a >> rudimentary (single) GPU and, guess what - almost the same level of >> performance (i.e. FPS and smoothness etc.) was achieved on this >> considerably less powerful machine (in terms of both CPU and GPU). >> >> So, it seems there is some kind of "performance wall" that limits the >> rendering speed of the scene graph (and this is with full speed animations >> enabled). >> >> What is the nature of this "wall"? Is it simply that the rendering pipeline >> is not making efficient use of the GPU? Is too much being done on the CPU? >> >> Whatever the cause, I really think it needs to be addressed. >> >> If I can't get better performance out of a machine that scores in the top >> 0.01% of all machine in the world in the 3DMark Index than an entry level >> PC, isn't this a MAJOR issue for JavaFX? >> >> Blessings, >> >> Felix > >
