I render ~17.000 VAOs each frame. 2.840.386 triangles. Only applying texture, nothing else.

I have three computers and the performance across them is not as expected.

  • Cheap laptop(i3-4010U & Intel HD 4400) runs at ~20 fps.
  • Desktop1(FX-9590 & GT 630) runs at ~65 fps.
  • Desktop2(i7-5820k & GTX 970) runs at ~105 fps.

As the game is in a pretty early stage, the only CPU task each frame is to loop through a 3-Dimensional map containing VAO ids, and then render them.

When I look at the CPU Benchmarks and the GPU Benchmarks of my systems, I would expect a much bigger difference between my Desktop2 and the two other systems. The GTX 970's 3D score(8662) is more than 15 times better than the Intel HD 4400's (546), though it only run 5 times as fast. Even more ridiculous the GTX 970's 3D score is ~11 times better than the GT 630's (797), but run 1.6 times faster.

Even without taking the benchmarks into consideration I would still expect bigger difference. When I compare the performance differences in other games(Like GTA V) across my systems, there's a much bigger difference. Therefore I know the problem is my game, and not a hardware/driver related issue.

Am I right that I would expect larger differences between the different systems, if yes: How may I find the issue and how can I solve it?

Edit: I've read that GTX 590 is capable of 3.2 Billion triangles/second, where as my game is only able to squeeze ~300 million of a GTX 970.

Edit 2: I've tested my desktop1(GT 630) that runs 1080p at 65fps and if I change the resolution to 1 * 1, I only get a performance boost of 20fps(85fps).

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Unless a benchmark is running an actual application, you may as well ignore it. Nothing useful is being said by them. Synthetic benchmarks mean squat. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 25, 2015 at 21:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NicolBolas Even without thinking about the benchmark I would still expect a much bigger difference, like in other games. \$\endgroup\$
    – KaareZ
    Commented Dec 25, 2015 at 21:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ He's pretty serious about benchmarks meaning absolutely nothing except as a comparison to other benchmarks. You cannot estimate performance of your usage pattern by looking at a benchmark with a totally different pattern. Have you tried running performance monitors on your setup? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 25, 2015 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PatrickHughes As I stated above, the difference is still too small. Other games have a way bigger difference than mine. Eg. GTA V can't even run at a playable framerate on lowest settings on Desktop1, while it can run at very high settings at 80 fps on Desktop2. So Desktop2 is obviously much more powerful than Desktop1, but doesn't run my game that much better. \$\endgroup\$
    – KaareZ
    Commented Dec 25, 2015 at 22:41
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Elephant in the room: If you have 17,000 draw calls each frame, you are not fully using your GPU. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 4:44

2 Answers 2


TL;DR: Your rendering test is very simple with no post-processing so even an integrated GPU has an easy time with it.

GPU Benchmarks test many different aspects of a rendering pipeline and gives you back a single simplified number.

GPUs have multiple points that can bottleneck and final render time depends on the worst point of the pipeline.

Some examples of possible bottlenecks:

  • Telling the GPU to start drawing (small number of primitives vs large batches)
  • GPU rendering mode configuration time (to switch shaders, textures, etc.)
  • GPU reading vertices from System RAM vs Video RAM
  • Vertex format re-organizing/re-aligning due to GPU DMA limitations
  • Vertex shader code processing (size + branches + # of cores)
  • pixel shader code processing (size + branches + # of cores)
  • texture fetches (amount, size, dependent reads)
  • post-processing steps (FBO flush -> texture -> pixel shader -> FBO)
  • Memory bandwidth
  • cache sizes & organization
  • bus bandwidth between CPU<-->GPU (in some rare extreme cases integrated GFX can be faster since they share the same cache & memory)
  • Triangle to tile draw combining
  • fixed point vs floating point shader performance

GPUs can "faceplant" in terms of performance past a certain point on any of those items.

For example, if GPU-Model-A has 8KB of instruction cache for each execution units but runs slightly faster than GPU-Model-B that has 16KB.

Model-A takes 7usec to process a 6KB shader while Model-B that takes 9usec. But if you're using a 12KB shader, Model-B can fit the entire shader it its cache but Model-A has to run it in 2 cache loads, which adds 30usec* to Model-A's execution, suddenly Model-B runs much faster in comparison.

*These are made-up numbers, actual numbers vary.

So the artificial benchmark final number depend on how much weight they assign to the score for each part they test and how much load and what type of load they put on the GPU & CPU.

In order to figure out which part is the bottleneck you must go through an elimination process where you lighten up the load off of each items and check the performance difference.

For example:

  • reducing screen resolution
  • disabling post effects
  • reducing texture sizes
  • reducing shader complexity (while still reading the textures)
  • removing dependent texture lookups (while still reading the textures)
  • rendering larger batches of triangles to reduce draw calls
  • disabling skinning

And check the performance gain of each single item or combination.

  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer enumerates the things to measure, unfortunately it provides absolutely no information of how to do that in a game-dev scenario. Which is what the question is all about - how to measure utilization of the available GPU resources and how to detect the bottlenecks. \$\endgroup\$
    – JBeurer
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 13:41

Note: While FPS can be safely used to compare values, for measuring differences(for optimizations) you should measure frame times.

There are programs that help you tell whether your application is cpu or gpu limited. One of them is AMD GPU PerfStudio, which as the name suggests is vendor-specific. I am sure NVidia has a similar program too, but I don't know its name. EDIT: I just remembered a basic GPU utilization meter is usually included in overclocking tools and and in the driver settings.

Also you should make sure that the cards are doing the same thing, there are often vendor-specific optimizations or effects that are tuned in relation to the GPU you have, these are usually set in the GPUs control panel. And make sure that the resolutions are the same too as laptops usually have lower resolution and this may strongly affect performance. The true performance of a high-end GPU may only be visible on higher resolutions.

Also bear in mind that the additional speed of a more advanced GPU may only kick in when you are doing more stuff, using more memory, and using more advanced features, which you said you aren't. GPU benchmarks are usually built to attempt to use all features and evenly distribute the work between all GPU blocks.

We have no way to know if the benchmarks points scale linearly with performance. The benchmarks may also be tuned to use tessellation and other new features which only recently been optimized in hardware, which will bring new-gen GPUs up-front, while in a simpler setting their power may be almost the same.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .