Nanite takes 2.5ms to render, as his preview clearly shows. + 0.5ms base pass.
His HW basepass takes 1.25ms(about 1ms less) and they are using a partial prepass(which results in somethings in the engine not being compatible)which only cost .2ms
Nanite is basically 3.1ms
HW raster is 1.5ms until you realize @myasga is rendering velocity separately adding a .9ms which you can remove by changing velocity render to “during basepass”.
That’s literally 2x faster than Nanite.
which is less, put you can see LODs popping in and reduced detail.
That’s Epic’s fault for not implementing proper transition patterns.
Also @TheKJ, overdraw doesn’t matter, if it doesn’t affect frame time. Nanite can have pretty harsh overdraw and barely increases in render time.
The visibility buffer is slow to resolve because it uses pixel shaders. If it was a HW visibility buffer(no clusters), it would be faster than the non-nanite basepass and the nanite basspass would stay the same. Because no z-testing exist because it’s a SW raster, the clusters are processed every time you see overdraw. The sw rasterizer is 3x faster but the overdraw makes it 2x slower. It’s a huge deal and it’s a reason why it takes 2x slower.
Overdraw literally means information was processes and wasted, that’s true in SW or HW raster.
Also, @myasga, show quad overdraw with LODs and investigate the shadow maps draws.
I do agree that this is redundant, the thread is here to update timings across each engine version to see if improvements where made to Nanite. We don’t need to throw random content at HW or SW raster. We need to see if Epic is improving the Nanite pipeline and resolve efficiency.