Fish-Networking Vs Mirror

These benchmarks are very old. Server outbound bandwidth metrics have changed.

As of the date 2023/08/26 Mirror is believed to be approximately 5% more efficient in bandwidth, and Fish-Networking about 90-95% more efficient in bandwidth.

Example:

if Mirror previously sent 100mB/s they are now expected to send 95mB/s.

If Fish-Networking previously sent 100mB/s it would now send 5mB/s

Versions

• Fish-Networking v1.4.3

• Mirror Networking v66.0.3

Results

Hardware

• Windows Server 2019

• AMD EPYC 7402P 24-Core (1 SLICE/CORE USED!)

• 2.00 GB RAM

100 CCU Scaling

• FishNet Server lost 1.5% of it's performance.

• FishNet Client ran at 1350 FPS.

• Mirror Server lost 29.5% of it's performance.

• Mirror Client ran at 791 FPS.

200 CCU Scaling

• FishNet Server lost 7.4% of it's performance.

• Mirror Server lost 83.2% of it's performance.

• Clients were untested.

100 CCU Bandwidth

• FishNet Server per second sent 7.3mB (adjusted 0.55mB) and received 1.1mB.

• Mirror Server per second sent 31.8mB (adjusted 30.2mB) and received 3.2mB.

200 CCU Bandwidth

• FishNet Server per second sent 29.9mB (adjusted 2.24mB) and received 2.2mB.

• Mirror Server per second sent 94.3mb (adjusted 89.6mB) and received 4.8mB.

Spawned Network Objects (idle)

Objects	Fish-Networking	Mirror
0	1.5ms	1.5ms
500	1.5ms	1.9ms
1000	1.5ms	2.2ms
2000	1.5ms	2.9ms
4000	1.5ms	4.2ms

Results

• Client FPS: FishNet clients achieved 70% more FPS than Mirror.

• Bandwidth: FishNet used 67-78% less bandwidth than Mirror.

• Server Performance(200 CCU): FishNet retained 92.6% server performance, while Mirror retained only 16.8% performance.

• Server Performance(4000 idle objects): FishNet retained 100% server performance, while Mirror retained only 36% performance.