-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Low frame rate of with_winit
demo on Android devices
#765
Comments
Yes
It likely depends on your device. On my Pixel 6, |
Does this mean that the current implementation inherently requires a relatively powerful GPU? Should I use other render engines like skia for low-end devices, and vello for high-end devices? I am trying to figure out a good solution for developing mobile apps. |
I don't know. The current implementation definitely inherently requires a GPU to be used. As I say, 10fps is unreasonably slow (it's 5 times slower than a laptop integrated graphics card from 12 years ago, according to this thread). Which is why I suspect that you're falling back to a CPU implementation of Vulkan. I'd make sure that all your drivers are up-to-date. Again, without knowing what device you're using, it's hard to make an good guess here. It is clearly running quite an old version of Android, so possibly the device was released before Vulkan was a requirement, and so just ships LLVMpipe and calls it a day. |
The other thing to try is if setting VELLO_STATIC_ARGS="--use-cpu" cargo apk run -p with_winit --lib --release |
That GPU seems to be very weak, which isn't what Vello has been optimised for. That being said, a quick search suggests it can have similar performance to the aforementioned 10 year old laptop, not a fifth of that. @raphlinus might be able to give a more compelling answer here. |
I tested the
with_winit
demo with an Android device, the frame rate is very low (about 10 fps). The command I used to run the demo is:Here is a screenshot of the demo:
Is Android an intended platform for
vello
? Is this frame rate expected with the current implementation?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: