One of the problems I started to run into while polishing things up for my contest entry builds was that as my levels grew larger, the game’s CPU utilization on the 360 steadily grew with them. While PC builds of my game ran smooth on basically all the machines I had access to, on the 360 the cost of updating all the level’s objects and entities became quite significant – most likely due to the 360′s feeble floating-point performance and lack of out-of-order execution.
The solution to this was, at least to me, relatively obvious: My levels were much larger than the camera, so it didn’t really make sense to update the entire level every frame.
The first thing I tried to verify this theory was simply hacking it in: Do a check before updating each object to see if it was onscreen. Interestingly, this didn’t make the game any faster on the 360. Depending on your point of view, this either confirmed or denied my hypothesis: If the problem was simply the cost of all the floating point operations, the cost of doing the onscreen check for each object (since the camera and object bounds were both expressed in floating-point) could have been making the problem worse. Clearly, I didn’t have enough data to be sure about the right choice to make.
So, I spent a day or so rigging up the necessary infrastructure to be able to profile my game on the 360. Since you can’t use tools like CLR Profiler or NProf on the 360, I ended up building a very simple frame timing system, and adding an overlay to the game that would show timing data. This let me get a good idea of how much time each subsystem in the game was using, and then I could compare the costs of individual subsystems, and try making changes and seeing how the profile data changed.
Once I had the profiler up and running on the 360, a clear pattern emerged.
Updates were consuming a huge amount of CPU time on the 360. While on my desktop, updates basically accounted for no more than 1% of CPU time, on the 360 they actually accounted for more CPU time than rendering – this was actually a bit of a surprise to me since rendering was definitely the bottleneck at one point on the 360. It seems that at some point along the way, I solved my rendering performance issues on the 360, but didn’t notice because I had made updates so much more expensive – one mistake I plan not to repeat was that I went a week or two without testing the game on the 360, since my 360 was not hooked up at the time. During that span of time I made a lot of changes that drastically altered the game’s performance characteristics, so it was hard to tell what had caused things to degrade.
