PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 1 / Rev 2

Transcription

1 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 1 / 5 Test setup In this benchmark test, new GPU accelerated LightningChart performance is briefly compared to other.net WinForms chart controls. Benchmark application was developed and test performed August 2010, with newest available chart versions. The chart controls participating in the test are: Arction LightningChart Pro/Ultimate 2.0 DevExpress chart Dundas chart Infragistics chart Microsoft chart Anonymous chart (opted out from comparison) Steema TeeChart Xceed chart The benchmark is divided in two parts: - Opening large data set and rendering it as a line graph - Real-time monitoring as a scrolling line graph Computer hardware and operating system The benchmarks are run with mid-performance class desktop computer, at the date of the test. System information: - Intel Core2 Quad Q GHz, - 4 GB RAM, - Ati Radeon HD MB display adapter, 1920 x 1200 resolution through the test - Windows Vista 64-bit OS. Benchmark application: - Windows forms application, compiled to 32-bit x86 configuration, because all chart components do not support running in 64-bit mode.

2 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 2 / 5 Benchmark 1 Rendering large data set A big data file is generated, saved to disk, and opened as value array. The array is passed to each chart and rendering delay is measured programmatically from event handler that should notify when rendering is done. Some chart components raise these events much before it is actually rendered, and with those, a manual extra delay observing is used (the time is taken from a watch). All charts are set to equal size, and simplest possible appearance. The fastest rendering series types from each chart component are used, to draw a line graph with a 1 pixel wide line, without points. The test is performed with various point amounts, to find a limit each chart can open without running out of memory or not having to wait over 10 minutes. PointCount DevExpress 1) Dundas 2) Infragistics 3) LightningChart 4) MS Chart 5) Anonymous 6) TeeChart 7) Xceed 8) ,5 0,2 1 0,006 0,2 0,2 0,2 0, ,7 0,6 17 0,012 0,3 0,3 0,245 0, ,016 0,6 2 1, (TTL) 0, , (OOM) (OOM) (TTL) 0,264 (OOM) (OOM) (OOM) (TTL) 2,626 (OOM) (OOM) (OOM) (OOM) The values are rendering delays as seconds. OOM = out of memory TTL = takes too long, not tested 1) DevExpress raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result. Manual observing is necessary 2) Dundas raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result 3) Note! Infagistics raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result. Infragistics has background grid / strips, which may slow it down 4) LightningChart gives an exact result 5) MS Chart raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result 6) Anonymous chart raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result 7) TeeChart gives an exact result 8) Raises painted event before the control is actually painted, giving too optimistic result

3 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 3 / 5 Benchmark 2 Real-time monitoring Data is appended to the end of the line series periodically. X axis length is 10 seconds. When 10 seconds elapses, X axis scrolling starts. Test duration is 100 seconds. Out-scrolled data is not freed explicitly by code. FPS, Avg repaints / sec Points / sec. DevExpress Dundas Infragistics LIghtningChart MS Chart Anonymous TeeChart Xceed 10 31,1 41 4, ,9 13,2 10,2 26, ,1 31,1 0, ,8 11,3 9,3 19, ,7 6 0, ,7 6,5 7, (OOM) (TSFT) ,2 3 1, (TSFT) (OOM) (TSFT) 59,6 (OOM) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (OOM) (TSFT) 55,6 (OOM) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (OOM) (TSFT) 48,5 (OOM) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (OOM) (TSFT) 34 (OOM) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) (OOM) (TSFT) 20,5 (OOM) (TSFT) (TSFT) (TSFT) OOM = out of memory TSFT = too slow for testing

4 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 4 / 5 Summary Benchmark 1- Rendering large data set By analyzing point count result, LightningChart rendering delay is totally in its own performance class. Average delay of others is seconds. Infragistics results are not accepted in the average of others, as it was not able to render it. LightningChart delay vs. average delay of others = s/ s = In other words, LightningChart rendering performance is 1 / = % times better than average of others. LightningChart large data set rendering performance is % better than average of others

5 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT Page 5 / 5 Benchmark 2- Real-time monitoring As a result for each chart, a new point count adding capability / sec is searched, giving approx. 20 frames / second or better refresh rate. Infragistics did not give acceptable result with any point count, and it s rejected from the results. Anonymous chart and TeeChart were accepted with low FPS values, just to get some results in the test. DevExpress Dundas Infragistics LightningChart MS Chart Anonymous TeeChart Xceed Points / sec FPS Once again, LightningChart is in its own performance class with points/sec. Average point count capability of other charts is 220 points/sec. That gives LightningChart real-time monitoring capacity of % better than the average of others. LightningChart real-time monitoring capacity is % better than average of others