unity3d 和 webgl 在性能和速度方面的比较
我将在两个平台上开发一个课程（首先在 webgl 中，然后在 unity 3d 中开发一个类似的课程）。 这项研究的目的是了解这些平台在电子学习环境中的性能和使用速度方面的最佳表现。
我的问题是：
如何测量这些平台的性能（处理器、内存、显卡）？
另外，如果有人给我提出改进这项研究的想法或建议，我将非常感激。
I am gonna develop a lesson in two platforms(firstly in webgl and then a similar lesson in unity 3d).
the aim of this research is to see the best of these platforms in terms of performance and speed to use it in e-learning environments.
my question is this :
how can i measure the performance (processor, memory, graphic card) for these platforms?
also, I am very appreciated if any one give me ideas or a suggestions to improve this research.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
WebGL 和 Unity 不是平台。 Unity 是一个支持多个平台的库；它的性能取决于它运行的硬件。 WebGL 是浏览器的 JavaScript API，允许浏览器访问 OpenGL ES 2.0。这也不是一个平台；而是一个平台。它完全依赖于它运行的硬件。
当然，每个都会产生开销，但它们也做完全不同的事情。即使某个特定硬件被认为速度更快，但这并不意味着您可以使用它。 Unity 制作应用程序。您下载并安装的东西。 WebGL 适用于网页：HTML+JavaScript。使用其中一种的原因与必须使用另一种的原因不同。
制作“WebApp”与制作常规应用程序有很大不同。您通常首先决定是要制作 Web 应用程序还是常规应用程序，然后使用您选择的可用工具。
有些平台不支持 WebGL。即 Internet Explorer。微软已经表示他们不会实施 WebGL。所以WebGL在IE上的性能实际上是0。
此外，WebGL是一个低级渲染API； Unity是一个游戏引擎。 Unity 比 WebGL 提供了更多用于制作游戏的功能，因此您必须考虑生产力差异。
您想要比较这些性能的愿望并不是决定使用哪一个的最有用的标准。
好的，您后来的回答让我意识到您正在专注于基于浏览器的工具。
WebGL 在 Internet Explorer 上不可用。再说一次，你的客户群已经消失了一半。不过，Unity的浏览器插件是插件，因此必须由用户下载。相当多的用户反对这一点。此外，Unity 的浏览器插件无法在移动系统上运行；您将被期望为这些编写一个应用程序。
那么，哪个对您来说更重要：接触移动用户（WebGL 可用），还是接触 Internet Explorer 用户？同样，这是您在回答性能问题之前就需要处理的事情。
WebGL and Unity are not platforms. Unity is a library that has support for multiple platforms; its performance depends on what hardware its running on. WebGL is a JavaScript API for browsers that allow them to access OpenGL ES 2.0. This also isn't a platform; it is utterly dependent on the hardware it is running on.
Sure, each incurs overhead, but they also do completely different things. Even if one is seen as faster for a particular piece of hardware, that doesn't mean that you can use it. Unity makes applications. Something you download and install. WebGL is for web pages: HTML+JavaScript. The reasons to use one are not the same reasons you would have to use the other.
Making a "WebApp" is very different from making a regular application. You generally decide first off whether you want to make a WebApp or a regular application, then use the tools that are available to the one you pick.
There are platforms that don't support WebGL. Namely, Internet Explorer. Microsoft has already stated that they aren't going to implement WebGL. So WebGL's performance on IE is effectively 0.
Also, WebGL is a low-level rendering API; Unity is a game engine. Unity provides more functionality towards making a game than WebGL, so there are productivity differences you must take into account.
Your desire to compare the performance of these simply is not the most useful criteria for deciding which one to use.
OK, your later answer clued me in to the idea that you're focusing on browser-based tools.
WebGL is not available on Internet Explorer. So again, half of your customer base is gone. However, Unity's browser plug-in is a plug-in and therefore must be downloaded by the user. Quite a few users are against that. Also, Unity's browser plug-in doesn't work on mobile systems; you would be expected to write an app for those.
So which matters more to you: reaching out to mobile users (where WebGL is available), or reaching out to Internet Explorer users? Again, this is something you need to deal with long before you answer questions of performance.