+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 06-09-2014
If you compile MCS yourself, you can expect it to be anywhere from 1x-3x as fast, probably around 2x. But of course it's a much bigger hassle to do it.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-09-2014
If your CPU is recent then yes. We've seen significant improvements on Sandy Bridge and Haswell but you'll probably get performance improvements on Nehalem and Penryn although less so as the performance comes from exploiting newer instructions.
RE: What we're doing - tigerw - 06-09-2014
I've never really understood '1 times (1x) as fast'.
1x = x, surely?
RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 06-09-2014
Yes, it does. But there has to be something in between 2x as fast and 1/2 as fast.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-09-2014
I've been wondering about in memory coordinate order. It seems YZX has some big advantages over ZXY. Does any one else have any opinions on this.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-09-2014
We already use YZX ordering (idx = X + Z * Width + Y * Width * Width)
How would you do chunksparsing with any other ordering? Will you apply the ordering per-section? This would cause quite a lot of fragmentation and it will be almost impossible to traverse the chunk in the in-memory order for any code that doesn't have access to the internal representation of cChunkData.
Some pieces of the MCS code are already optimized for the current ordering, mostly this means that their 3D loops are organized so that the blocks in memory are traversed sequentially.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-09-2014
What I meant was idx = Y + X * height + Z * height * width. Chunk sparsing is the main problem with this as far as I can tell. The reason I was thinking about it is that most of the loops optimised for the current order can be easily switched to the YXZ, just change which loop is the outer loop. The advantage is in places like lighting and generator where things are processed column be column.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 06-09-2014
Even if you did change the ordering, the lighting will be thrashing the cache because of sparsing. So I'd say it's not worth the huge effort that would be required for this.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 06-09-2014
Ok, Ill keep the matrix transpose at the entry and exit of my vectorised lighting code for now. I shold be able to improve it if I go to 3D vectors though. You may find the same problem when working on you generator abstraction that you want to map of columns but the vectors arn't set up that way.
RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 06-11-2014
I handed in my graduation assignment and documentation today
