# State Machine vs. Motion Matching - Demo Performance Analysis Share

**URL:** <https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/state-machine-vs-motion-matching-demo-performance-analysis-share/2721152>\
**Category:** Character & Animation\
**Tags:** unreal-engine, state-machines, blendspace\
**Created:** [May 10, 2026, 11:49am UTC](https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/state-machine-vs-motion-matching-demo-performance-analysis-share/2721152 "2026-05-10T11:49:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Subressor](https://d1ap1mz92jnks1.cloudfront.net/user_avatar/forums.unrealengine.com/subressor/32/1112012_2.png) [@Subressor](https://forums.unrealengine.com/u/Subressor)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2026, 11:49am UTC](https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/state-machine-vs-motion-matching-demo-performance-analysis-share/2721152/1 "2026-05-10T11:49:49Z")

</div>

Hey, just working on optimising my demo using Unreal Insights. Revisiting the question I had in my mind on Animation performance, “new” Motion Matching vs. “old” State Machines & Blendspaces. Sharing my findings below for anyone else that was interested in that question.

## Context

I profiled a traditional **state machine animation blueprint** (our game, BGP) against UE 5.7’s **GASP sample using motion matching** via Unreal Insights single-frame timer analysis. Both traces had full stat named events enabled.

### The Key Numbers

| | State Machine (BGP) | Motion Matching (GASP) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Worker thread eval per character** | ~0.43 ms | 0.50 ms |
| **Locomotion selection cost per character** | 0.008 ms | ~0.25 ms |
| **Game thread anim cost per character** | ~0.07 ms | ~0.14 ms |
| **Debug cost (strippable)** | 0.003 ms/char | 0.016 ms |

### What This Means

- **Motion matching locomotion selection is ~31x more expensive** than state machine evaluation (0.25 ms vs 0.008 ms per character)
- **BUT overall worker thread cost per character is surprisingly comparable** (~0.43 vs 0.50 ms) because each system spends its budget differently:
  - BGP fills its worker budget with **PoseDriver** (0.21 ms/char) and **ControlRig** (0.08 ms/char) - procedural corrections that would remain regardless of locomotion approach
  - GASP fills its worker budget with **motion matching pipeline** (0.25 ms/char) - pose search, trajectory, choosers, BlendStack

- **Both test scenarios were GPU-bound** , meaning worker thread animation had headroom and did not bottleneck the frame
- If BGP adopted motion matching while keeping PoseDriver/ControlRig, net per-character worker cost would increase by **~0.24 ms** (from ~0.43 to ~0.67 ms)
- At 19 ticking characters, that’s **~4.6 ms additional aggregate worker thread time** (parallel, not blocking game thread), reducible via URO

### The Biggest Single Cost in Either System

**PoseDriver** in BGP at 3.94 ms total (0.21 ms/char, 210 calls across 19 characters). This is not related to state machines or motion matching - it’s a procedural correction system that would exist in either architecture. It is the single most expensive animation timer in our entire trace.

* * *

## Test Methodology

### Environment

- **Engine:** Unreal Engine 5.7
- **Profiling tool:** Unreal Insights, single-frame timer list export with stat named events enabled
- **Hardware:** Same machine for both captures

### BGP Tutorial Area (State Machine)

- Rich game world with environment, NPCs, lighting, particles
- **19 animation-ticking skeletal meshes** (leader components running ABPs)
- **426 total skeletal mesh component ticks** (modular character system - each character has multiple body part meshes following a leader pose)
- Animation blueprint uses traditional state machine with blendspaces, plus IK (LegIK, ControlRig), PoseDriver nodes, layered blending, montage slots
- Game thread frame: ~9.3 ms
- Parallel animation evaluation enabled (28 worker tasks)

### GASP Motion Matching Sample

- Simple scene, single controllable character
- **1 animation-ticking skeletal mesh**
- Animation blueprint uses motion matching (PoseSearch), Chooser Tables, BlendStack, orientation warping, steering, foot placement
- No PoseDriver, no ControlRig (for animation)
- Game thread frame: ~5.0 ms (3.2 ms idle/GPU-wait)
- Parallel animation evaluation enabled (1 worker task)

### Normalization Approach

BGP costs are divided by character count (19 for most timers) to produce per-character estimates. GASP costs are taken directly (1 character). Worker thread aggregate times represent total CPU time across all workers, not wall-clock game thread impact.

* * *

Game Reference Link - [The Freeblades on Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/app/3983160/The_Freeblades/)