I am currently trying to figure out how to do performances checks and debug for low-end or integrated graphic chips. I am working on a 2d game and altough i am not targeting gamers with low-end PC, i want it to run with adequate performances on computers without a dedicated GPU or very low-end gpus.
Is there an easy and confortable solution to do this. By confortable, i mean that of course i could buy a used laptop, but that would mean making a mess on my already bloathed work desk and work on a tiny low-quality screen, not even sure if it would handle one of my QHD screens, and i’m not expecting this to be an easy work so it will probably mean working like this for a fair amount of hours.
So i’ve tried Virtual-box and of course even with guest addition and 3d acceleration enabled i get about 2 fps on the executable. There are cloud services specifically designed for gamers such as Shadow but it wont help much. What about cloud services such as Amazon or Windows Azure, or any others, maybe there are services that allow to run a remote desktop with some gpu power to run graphical apps?
If you don’t want to get a laptop, maybe consider instead a mini-PC? I can’t speak to other brands, but I have an old Zotac Zbox I’ve used for testing low-spec hardware and it’s small enough to not worry about space. You’ll have to sacrifice a monitor input but generally monitors have multiple even on the low end. Most mini-PCs even stand vertically for a smaller desk footprint.
Well, the solution is buying hardware for the low end PC. Basically, build a Frankenstein from used parts.
Virtual Box is … NOT good for anything with 3d acceleration, because support of virtual GPUs is not solid. As you noticed you’ll get 1/10th of the performance and that’s if you’re really lucky and run 10 to 20 years old games on it.
Working on a tiny monitor can be solved by using either a HDMI switch (to reroute signal into your main display), or anydesk. There are also KVM switches which allow you to reroute input and display signal between multiple machines.
Regarding desk space, you can mount the frankenstein on a wall, or put it into the box.
Using a small form factor for test machines is also an option. One of the smallest form factors is Pico-ITX, I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico-ITX
One solution i tought about yesterday is simply using a remote desktop. This way i can have one or more machines pluged wherever whitout a screen and access it over the network with regular keyboard, mouse and screens. I did a quick test with a Surface Pro i’ve got from work and altough the framerate isn’t ideal, i was able to play a 3d game remotely in decent conditions.
Testing should not be done over remote connections etc. The smart way to go about this is to do what everyone is recommending and build dedicated hardware. You cant properly emulate/simulate this sort of thing, and you definately dont want to muddle up your testing results by adding remote connections on top. You need to be sure the data you get from testing is accurate, which it wont be the moment you start to do something like that.
We have created a game without low end hardware. We optimize as much as we can without degrading gfx. We have some players in our discord with 1070 etc that can be a final test bench. Analyzing game performance on high end hardware gives pretty good clues how it will perform on low end hardware too.
I have some hardware that is old enough to only support up to SSE 4.1, and that tends to be a really good rig to test on for working out how old or low end stuff will handle things. I dont know if I would actually buy a dedicated piece of hardware just to test low end, but if I was confident that I can make the money back then I would consider it a worthy investment
It all depends on how far you want to support old hardware I checked our hardware survey. And intel 8700k is the leading one, together with various 8 core AMDs like 2700x.
When your “high end” and “low end” are all enthusiast grade desktop PC hardware, perhaps. Many games need to scale across different types of GPUs, or to systems with very different bottlenecks.
Also note that “low end” is not the same as “old”. New machines ship with Intel GPUs in them every day. And there’s consoles and mobile devices to consider, too.
The hardware survey for your VR game where you only care about people with top-notch gear? Context is important.
Offcourse its easer when our low end is mid tier for others. But same can be applied. Though if you miss features like MMX or dedicated Coprocessor its harder
No it can’t. Performance doesn’t scale linearly between differently designed hardware. Phone GPUs aren’t just little tiny 3090s, they’re comparatively stronger and weaker at different things.
I’ll have to actually install Unity on the machine to check, but i think the included perfs meter should be fairly accurate. It’s not for making simple playtest but actually working on the project while benchmarking it.
My final benchmark is not players with a gtx 1070 or even 1060, it is the basic laptop you get for $600. I have a gtx 1080 ti myself and with this hardware, numbers have no meaning since i’m always over 300 fps.
In my HTPC i have a HD630 which probably is equal to what you find in a 600 USD laptop. Compared to a 1080 TI
The 1080 TI has roughly 3,64 times better performance across the board. That can be a pretty good estimate when you compare. So your 300 fps will land around 82 fps (Very rough estimaste offcourse)
Nothing from that website is reliable as they’re known to be biased. PassMark has the Intel HD 630 raw performance rated at 1156 while the 1080 Ti is rated at 17865. That is far more than just 3.64 times.
Passmark is synthesized test though while the other one is actual games. Which usually is better indication But if its not correct data as you say then its worthless.
edit: “My” site lists the 3d power of 1080 TI as 26 times better while yours list raw power as 15 times.
I checked our hardware survey. And intel 8700k is the leading one, together with various 8 core AMDs like 2700x.
