Aurel have you ever noticed this problem? Or is your game simply optimized so well that it runs well even with this terrible performance?

Yep. I tried talking to NVIDIA about the GPU fallback problem (They basically have a forum for bug reports) and it didn't get very far

Turning off webGL is not a solution. Canvas2D is still slow, definitely too slow for my purposes.

I really can't believe that a high-end intel integrated GPU cannot run webGL at one third of the speed of a two year old tablet, or a five-year old budget mac. It's completely crazy if this is the case. If it's really just a hard limitation of webGL, then webGL is not suitable for games, period.

I'd really like to hear what Ashley has to say about all of this.

I tried out some Unity webGL benchmarks and they seemed to perform well, although with no no-webGL reference point it's hard to say anything definitive there.

I can't just tell my users that they can't use integrated graphics. Everyone in this day and age expects 2D games to be able to run on the most basic of machines. When you factor in the GPU fallback problem, the situation becomes worse.

— If this is true, that's crazy! Surely the implementation couldn't be that poor that it performs three times worse than an Android tablet.

Saying that most gamers have a good GPU may be true, but Intel Integrated Graphics is used by about 20% of Steam users - check out the Steam hardware stats.

You also have to factor in the fact that a lot of the time C2 games will by default fall back to the integrated chipset instead of utilizing the GPU in the first place, which means that this percentage would increase significantly for anyone unable, unwilling, or uninformed about that issue.

Aphrodite thanks for the clarification. Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing somewhere that canvas2D can be hardware acellerated. For further clarification, if canvas2D is also hardware accelerated, why is it (supposed to be) so much slower than webGL? Is webGL just 'more low-level' somehow?

Anyway, none of your factors even remotely explain what's going on, except perhaps 'wonky browser implementation'

-weak systems? No, this is a top-of-the line CPU and integrated graphics setup.

-effects? None in this benchmark, or my game once I've disabled them.

-wonky browser implementation? Maybe, but that doesn't explain why only some systems are effected. Also, doesn't explain why *all* browsers on these systems are effected!

-text objects? Maybe on mobile this is an issue but I think it's safe to say that for the purposes of this benchmark, text will have a tiny tiny tiny effect, if any.

-canvas plugin? Not used.

Everyone: To put things in perspective: I tested the renderperftest on my 2-year-old android tablet, and with webGL enabled it outperforms all pc's tested by a factor of 3.

Also, just tested in Firefox. canvas2D outperforms webGL by a factor of 2.

TiAm Your results pretty much match mine. 2.5x for canvas2D is crazy though, I didn't see anything that high.

As for your theory:

It's a great theory and you're probably right, but it strikes me as a little weird. I find it hard to believe that an integrated graphics chipset would perform as well, or slightly worse, than software rendering on the CPU itself. It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm being weird, I dunno. Anyway, from my limited understanding, can't canvas2D be hardware acellerated as well, just more slowly?

As for specs:

Machine 1:

Intel Core i7-4710HQ

Intel HD graphics 4600

nvidia GTX 860M (Disabled for testing purposes)

12gb RAM

Machine 2:

Intel Core i7-4510U

Intel HD graphics 4400

8gb RAM

The other machines are pretty similar, but lower spec'd. Can't access them to get specifics right at the moment.

EDIT: I just asked someone who programs games in pure C++, he said that software rendering should never ever be faster than hardware. I tend to agree, especially when we're talking javascript here.

TiAm it's not a spritefont... but text should have a very minimal performance impact. We're not talking mobiles here.

In your benchmarks:

PixelFillrate: Canvas2D gives a slight performance bonus over webGL, in both IE and Chrome.

DevilMark: webGL allows about twice as many sprites as Canvas2D in Chrome, and a little bit more in IE. Interestingly enough, the amount of devils I could spawn before it dropped to 30fps was about *five times* the number of sprites I can support in the renderperftest.

So... still no friggin clue what's going on. You said you see similar results with the renderperf test?

Somebody thanks for the kind words. As for the fonts loading in, in NW I've never noticed any loading. It's not really designed for browsers.

Out of curiosity, I just did a bit of testing in a different level of the full game.

I disabled all the layer shaders (There's still an adjust HSL shader on the player, but the effect of that has to be minimal)

I'm not even talking jank at the moment, just raw fps.

At 1080p in Chrome, with webGL ON, I got around 40fps.

At 1080p in Chrome, with webGL OFF, I got 60fps.

I'll say it again

At 1080p in Chrome, with webGL ON, I got around 40fps.

At 1080p in Chrome, with webGL OFF, I got 60fps.

This is actually sort of exciting for me because it means that there's definitely something wacky going on somewhere. Ashley any ideas?

EDIT: I did some further testing in my fillrate tester (The same one used in this topic) and found that webGL performance was basically exactly the same as non webGL. I've tried to do some research to find out if this is expected behaviour or not, but there doesn't seem to be a lot written on the subject. Apparently fillrate usually isn't an issue for most games?

EDIT 2: OK, maybe I'm going crazy. I looked up some benchmarks:

Renderperf3: WebGL disabled

Renderperf3: WebGL enabled

I went around to every computer in the house and tested them out, on Chrome and IE. There were four laptops with Intel Integrated Graphics of different varieties, and every single one had non-webGL either perform identically to webGL, or surpass it by a significant margin. The only exception was a five year old mac, which crushed all the other computers when it came to webGL performance, and was about the same with non-webGL performance.

So... what's going on here? Why am I the only one who's noticed that webGL is performing the same as canvas2D on all Intel Integrated Graphics machines? Or is there something I'm missing?

Colludium if you can't move around, that's a bug. What's preventing you from moving?

(Sorry, forgot to do responses)

Aurel, nothing offscreen is rendered. This problem is purely rendering related. Thus, offscreen activity shouldn't be a factor.

As for regular rotation, yes, the janks are just as noticeable, possibly even more noticeable.

— yep. I'm definitely really weirded out by all this...

Haven't noticed any difference on desktop.

OK!

I've uploaded a new demo (Just follow the original link, you may need to refresh a few times or maybe clear the cache).

Basically, I got rid of all the shaders, added a graph with red showing 1/dt and green showing fps, and tested it out in a few configurations. This has shown some very interesting results. Here's what my testing showed:

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the winner is Internet Explorer with no webGL.

I... I think I need to sit down for a while.

(Oh, by the way, I tried out the new r198 release and found no difference. The new demo is exported in r198.)