URP is quite a bit slower in 2021.2 beta 1. I’m doing my tests on 2020.3.11 It’s slower in editor, and in standalone builds.
I’ve made sure all settings are the same, went over them one by one, most new beta settings aren’t enabled by default currently. Same shadows, processing, etc.
information:
Using direct11, windows. Versions checked: 2021.1.12: No regression 2020.3.11.f1: No regression 2021.2.21: Regression found 2021.2.1 (beta one): Regression found: All profiling and testing done on builds, not in editor. (it says playmode in profiler, but it is profiling the build)
I’ll include some editor data though.
profiler says playmode, ignore that – it is 100% build data. it says that because I profiled the build, then closed the build (game). So it went back to display ‘playmode’ since the connection was lost. even though the data in there is from the build.
IDK if it was intentional or not, but you ended up including only editor data, not just some.
Something is allocating in your second example, so something is vastly different, I think it would worth to take a look. GC-ing can easily have 1-1.2ms difference in a frame. Also check the GC setting, see if disabling the incremental garbage collection makes a difference.
Look at the bottom, the profiler is from a build. I don’t imagine people would need a picture when they have the profile to see everything.
I’ll probably include profiler for editor too, just didn’t get to it yet.
Asset wise, I don’t think anything is different. It’s the exact same scripts, same quantity, same assets, and same placement. Just upgraded materials to work with URP. And it had the same performance before the beta.
If something is allocating all of a sudden, it probably has to do with the the version. And the second example, if you mean the profiler, is the beta.
I just noticed, for some reason it says playmode, but it is profiling the build standalone, and not the editor. Weird. I checked and it is correctly profiling the build.
I was hoping you’d read the entire post before replying:(
both have inc GC, so if it’s causing this, it’s still regression since it was fine before the beta.
Although I’ll try a build with it disabled, eventually… hopefully. Building takes so long.
You can record something in the profiler and then close the build and look at it later, at which point it can say whatever it wants up there and it doesn’t really matter.
I just checked and profiled the build again – same data as pictures. I believe acid is correct, I saved the data and closed the game so it went back and showed ‘playmode’ name but it is build data.
I reported this as a UX bug (case 1344885). Since it’s not a beta problem, I haven’t included the beta hashtag, so I leave the video card reward for you so you can run your URP project better.
@MartinTilo you may be interested in this misunderstanding (If not, sorry for the summon :)). Possible improvement in the profiler UX.
Checked more versions. Versions marked with * had tests only in the editor and not standalone builds. 2021.1.12*: No regression 2020.3.11.f1: No regression 2021.2.21*: Regression found 2021.2.0beta one: Regression found (most severe)
I know, I should have said “issue” here, for what it worth, I submitted this, so it’s an “issue”, rather than a “bug”:
submitted UX issue text
Loaded profiler data nowhere says it’s from file and if it’s from editor or build
What happened
How can we reproduce it using the example you attached
It’s not a real “bug” in terms of faulty working, it’s a UX issue.
run the profiler either in playmode or in a build
observe that the dropdown shows where the profiling happens (Playmode or - )
save the profiler data into file
close the profiler
open the profiler
load back the file
the profiler always says Playmode no matter where the data is coming from and there is no indication it’s loaded from file and what kind of profiler data the file contains.