3 ms·

> An early Facebook photos engineer mentioned he had seen remarkable performance and quality coming out of the Apple Core Graphics stack . What does the Apple

> An early Facebook photos engineer mentioned he had seen remarkable performance and quality coming out of the Apple Core Graphics stack . What does the Apple stack have, which can't be done on a Linux box with a high-end GPU like a K20 or a Tesla?

tacos 11y ago
[Talking purely CPU] You can resize 100k images a second on a 2013 laptop. [Source: the Google guy who serves your images.] A couple ARM cellphones could meet this entire company's [CPU] image processing needs. Think of what YouTube is doing for videos in the time you read this sentence if you want to put their silly claims in perspective. Anybody remember when Steve Jobs said the 400Mhz PowerPC G4 Altivec was a supercomputer? But the only code that showed up was a Reverb that took a weekend to run and a couple FFT libraries that had accuracy problems? Good times.
- moe 11y ago
  You can resize 100k images a second on a 2013 laptop. Very unlikely.
- duaneb 11y ago
  100k images a second is definitely more than my laptop can even read off a disk in a second. Unless they're already small images.
SEJeff 11y ago
K20s are old GPUs, get a Tesla K80 :) The apple hardware is either Nvidia or ATI gpus, but the software apis are what are really nice about dealing with some of these things on OS X. I think the Author of the post is confounding new hardware from Nvidia / ATI with new hardware from Apple.
mrhyperpenguin 11y ago
This is just speculation but probably nothing. Imgix should be doing their image processing with GPGPU technology (CUDA or OpenCL) which should be pretty much available anywhere. Technically Apple has had their Metal API available for a while now but I kind of doubt they're using that for image processing.
nulltype 11y ago
These run on the same hardware, so of course, someone could implement Core Graphics on Linux. However, nobody has as far as I know, and I think it would be rather expensive and time consuming to implement that. It seems it was cheaper for Imgix to use Core Graphics rather than implement it themselves on Linux.

tacos 11y ago

[Talking purely CPU] You can resize 100k images a second on a 2013 laptop. [Source: the Google guy who serves your images.] A couple ARM cellphones could meet this entire company's [CPU] image processing needs. Think of what YouTube is doing for videos in the time you read this sentence if you want to put their silly claims in perspective. Anybody remember when Steve Jobs said the 400Mhz PowerPC G4 Altivec was a supercomputer? But the only code that showed up was a Reverb that took a weekend to run and a couple FFT libraries that had accuracy problems? Good times.

moe 11y ago
You can resize 100k images a second on a 2013 laptop. Very unlikely.
duaneb 11y ago
100k images a second is definitely more than my laptop can even read off a disk in a second. Unless they're already small images.

SEJeff 11y ago

K20s are old GPUs, get a Tesla K80 :) The apple hardware is either Nvidia or ATI gpus, but the software apis are what are really nice about dealing with some of these things on OS X. I think the Author of the post is confounding new hardware from Nvidia / ATI with new hardware from Apple.

mrhyperpenguin 11y ago

This is just speculation but probably nothing. Imgix should be doing their image processing with GPGPU technology (CUDA or OpenCL) which should be pretty much available anywhere. Technically Apple has had their Metal API available for a while now but I kind of doubt they're using that for image processing.

nulltype 11y ago

These run on the same hardware, so of course, someone could implement Core Graphics on Linux. However, nobody has as far as I know, and I think it would be rather expensive and time consuming to implement that. It seems it was cheaper for Imgix to use Core Graphics rather than implement it themselves on Linux.