Why not use GDI to repeatedly fill a window with R

问题:

This is a follow-up to this question. I'm currently writing a simple game and am looking for the fastest way to (repeatedly) display an array of RGB data in a Win32 window, without flickering or other artifacts.

Several different approaches were recommended in the answers to the previous question, but there was no consensus on which would be the fastest. So, I threw together a test program. The code simply displays a framebuffer on the screen repeatedly, as fast as possible.

These are the results I obtained, for 32-bit data running in a 32-bit video mode - they may surprise some people:

- Direct3D (1):             500 fps
- Direct3D (2):             650 fps
- DirectDraw (3):          1100 fps
- DirectDraw (4):           800 fps
- GDI (SetDIBitsToDevice): 2000 fps

Given these figures:

• Why are many people adamant that GDI is simply too slow for this operation?
• Is there any reason to prefer DirectDraw or Direct3D over SetDIBitsToDevice?

---

Here is a brief summary of the calls made by each of the Direct* codepaths. If anyone knows a more efficient way to use DirectDraw/Direct3D, please comment.

1. CreateTexture(D3DUSAGE_DYNAMIC, D3DPOOL_DEFAULT);
       LockRect(); memcpy(); UnlockRect(); DrawPrimitive()

2. CreateTexture(0, D3DPOOL_SYSTEMMEM); CreateTexture(0, D3DPOOL_DEFAULT);
       LockRect(); memcpy(); UnlockRect(); UpdateTexture(); DrawPrimitive()

3. CreateSurface(); SetSurfaceDesc(lpSurface = &frameBuffer[0]);
       memcpy(); primarySurface->Blt();

4. CreateSurface();
       Lock(); memcpy(); Unlock(); primarySurface->Blt();

回答1:

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First of all, a lot of "common knowledge" is based on some facts that no longer really apply.

In the days of AGP, when the CPU talked directly to the GPU, it always used the base PCI protocol, which happened at the "1x" rate (always and inevitably). AGX 2x/4x/8x only applied when the GPU was taking to the memory controller directly. In other words, depending on when you looked, it was up to 8 times as fast to have the GPU load a texture from memory as it was for the CPU to send the same data directly to the GPU. Of course, the CPU also had a great deal more bandwidth to memory than the PCI bus supported.

When things switched to PCI-E, however, that changed completely. While there can be differences in bandwidth depending on path, there's no general rule that memory->GPU will be faster than CPU->GPU. The one generalization that's (mostly) safe is that if you have a dedicated graphics card, then the GPU will almost always have more bandwidth to the memory on the graphics card than it does to main memory on the motherboard.

In your case, that doesn't matter much though -- you're talking about moving data from CPU space to GPU space regardless. The main speed difference with using DirectX (or OpenGL) happens when you keep all (or most) of the computation on the GPU, and avoid using the CPU (or main memory) at all. They don't (now that AGP is history) provide any substantial improvement in memory->display bandwidth.

回答2:

Jerry Coffin makes some good points. The thing to bear in mind is what the DI stands for in SetDIBitsToDevice. It stands for Device Independent. Which means you were ALWAYS at the mercy of drivers. Some drivers used to be complete rubbish and it affected the performance massively. DirectDraw suffered from similar issues as well ... but you also had access to the hardware blitters so it was generally more useful. IHVs also tended to put more time in to writing proper drivers for DirectDraw because of its gaming association. Who wants to be the bottom of the performance pile when the hardware is quite capable of doing better?

These days many graphics cards can accept the bit data directly so no conversion happens. If it does need to be swizzled this is also INCREDIBLY quick in this day and age.

The reason your Direct3D performance is so terrible, by comparison, is that Direct3D, by nature of the fact it is meant to be used totally internally to the GPU, uses odd and complex formats to improve cache performance and so forth.

Couple that with the fact that you aren't testing like for like (with DDraw and D3D) by creating a texture/surface, locking it, copying, unlocking and then drawing over the back buffer (via various methods). To get best performance you'd be best off directly locking the backbuffer using a DISCARD lock then memcpy'ing directly into the returned buffer before unlocking. This will bring your performance much closer to the SetDIBitsToDevice. I still would expect D3D to be slower than DDraw, however, for the reasons outlined above.

回答3:

The reason you will hear people trounce on GDI is that it used to just be old windows API calls. The newer versions of it (that were called GDI+ when I last looked at em) are actually just an API placed on top of DirectX calls. So using GDI may seem fairly simple programming wise at times, but adding a layer between things always slows things down. As mentioned in the response from Jerry Coffin, your examples are about moving the data, and that is the slow time. I am a bit surprised that DirectX is that much slower though but I can not be much more help with out digging through the DirectX documentation (which has been pretty awesome for quite some time really.. Might want to check out www.codesampler.com. I have always found good starting places from him and actually, while I may be insane for saying this, I would swear the improvements to the DirectX SDK in doc and examples were done based on this guys work!)

As for the DirectDraw vs Direct3D (and not the GDI calls) discussion. I would say go to Direct3D. I believe DirectDraw has been deprecated since 8.0 or so, and 9.0 has been around for quite a long while. And at the end of the day all of DirectX is 3D, it just varies on the levels of helpful 2D apis that are around, but you may find you can do some very interesting things in a 2D environment when you are actually using 3D space. (I had a pretty neat randomly generated lightning weapon for a space invaders clone at one time :))

Anywho, hope this helped!

PS: It should be noted that DirectX is not always the fastest. For keyboard input (unless this has changed in 10 or 11) it has pretty much always been recommended to use the windows events.. as DirectInput was actually just a wrapper for that system!.. XInput however is -awesome-!!