Take the 2-minute tour ×
Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If anyone ever played minecraft and realized no matter what computer you have it normally doesn't give over 100 FPS? While looking at decompiled code from it I noticed it renders with OpenGL 1.1 calls. I knew people said it was slow but do you think that is the problem? I'm not asking anything about minecraft I'm asking if OpenGL 1.1 is capable of this horribly low FPS.

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Tetrad Feb 10 '13 at 3:16

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Questions should be limited to strictly game development on this site. Although you ask about the speed of OpenGL 1.1, your question's focus seems to be regarding the impact of OpenGL 1.1 on the performance of Minecraft. Without knowing the architecture of Minecraft or specific details about your computer, it is impossible to answer your question. –  Zach Latta Feb 9 '13 at 13:02
5  
100FPS isn't 'horribly low'. That means that even if the graphics are rendering infinitely fast, every single other part of the program is able to get a whole frame of processing out of the way in 10ms. You can't judge graphical speed purely on game frame counts, much less at high rates like 100 or above. (Most console games struggle to run at 30, for example.) –  Kylotan Feb 9 '13 at 13:09
1  
Cinema movies (non digital) display at 24fps, TV broadcasting is 25 fps. –  Philip Whitehouse Feb 9 '13 at 15:14
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

There are many reasons why a game may be limited to a specific framerate, and only one of them is relative performance of the API version. Let's look at two of the most simple examples.

vsync can limit framerate to the refresh rate of your monitor. If you have a 100hz monitor and if vsync is enabled, you'll never run faster than 100fps.

The game may have an artificial FPS cap to prevent it from running too fast; i.e. it may not run the next frame until 10 or more milliseconds have passed since the previous one.

To test the performance of OpenGL 1.1 you can dig out a copy of the original Quake and benchmark it - that used GL 1.1 (actually 1.0 with the texture objects extension) and it's capable of running much faster than 100fps in it's benchmark mode. Also note that it's artificially limited to 72fps when running normally.

Having said all that, it is true that GL 1.1 is not the fastest path available, it can begin to bog down a little as more passes and higher polygon counts ramp up, and higher GL_VERSIONs can offer faster, cleaner ways of doing things that must otherwise be handled with a complex and heavy setup, or brute-forced on the CPU, in GL 1.1; but "not the fastest" is not the same thing as "horribly slow" - there are a whole world of intermediate stages between the two.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.