Hah.. These results are quite unobjective =) You were reading and writing empty pixels, that is a special case in both managers. And doesn't show actual read/write speed. Though shows a different thing...<div><br></div>
<div>Writing of pixels to the empty dm shows in both engines:</div><div>1) speed of allocation of a new tile</div><div>2) speed of filling this tile with data</div><div><br></div><div>Reading from the empty dm shows different things for both engines (remember, that tiles3 still has "extents"-bug)</div>
<div>For tiles/</div><div>1) speed of reading of the default tile, that is preallocated inside dm</div><div><br></div><div>For tiles3/</div><div>1) speed of allocation of a new tile</div><div>2) speed of reading this tile</div>
<div>This should be fixed of course, but i'm still trying to find time for that.</div><div><br></div><div>I thing "nominations" should be the following:</div><div><br></div><div>1) Reading:</div><div>load some image (e.g. hakonepa or smth bigger), and read it</div>
<div>2) Writing:</div><div>write hakonepa to dm</div><div>3) Clearing:</div><div>clear(someColor) - this should be much faster in new engine</div><div>4) Reading *empty* dm - reveals my bug</div><div>5) Writing *empty* dm. If we subtract 2nd number form this, we'll get pure time of allocation of new tiles. This should be very interesting result.</div>
<div><br></div><div>6) Btw, we should test Memento mechanism: </div><div> o write-getMemento-repeat</div><div> o read-write-read-getMemento-repeat</div><div><br>-- <br>Dmitry Kazakov<br>
</div>