Same speed on both but the visual output is broken on the copyrect.
The r2t shows the spinning cube (150 FPS after fixing the points mentioned below)
the copyrect doesn't show it. (135 FPS)
Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM, GF 8800GTS 640MB on 169.29 drivers.
Both share the basic fact that the spheres are plain white.
Notes:
1. the r2t render function is broken. it sets the buffer within the loop instead of outside. as locking is a very costy operation it costs a fair percentage of the true r2t performace and actually degrades it to copyrect as it does the same operations -> defeats its point :)
2. r2t does not need camera viewport. it already sets the texture as render target which automatically defines the area. it doesn't make a difference on my card thought
EDIT: At ts = 1024 I at least get parts of the cube on copy rect (but it has rect shaped holes). The performance on the r2t is still the same, the one on copyrect degrades to 80, same for 2048
The r2t shows the spinning cube (150 FPS after fixing the points mentioned below)
the copyrect doesn't show it. (135 FPS)
Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM, GF 8800GTS 640MB on 169.29 drivers.
Both share the basic fact that the spheres are plain white.
Notes:
1. the r2t render function is broken. it sets the buffer within the loop instead of outside. as locking is a very costy operation it costs a fair percentage of the true r2t performace and actually degrades it to copyrect as it does the same operations -> defeats its point :)
2. r2t does not need camera viewport. it already sets the texture as render target which automatically defines the area. it doesn't make a difference on my card thought
EDIT: At ts = 1024 I at least get parts of the cube on copy rect (but it has rect shaped holes). The performance on the r2t is still the same, the one on copyrect degrades to 80, same for 2048