3 ms·
I've never met a computer where 2D graphics were faster with a GPU. (Try benchmarking and see for yourself. 2D graphics is mostly blitting pixels, where a GPU w
by otabdeveloper1 10y ago
I've never met a computer where 2D graphics were faster with a GPU. (Try benchmarking and see for yourself. 2D graphics is mostly blitting pixels, where a GPU will only slow things down.)
- vardump 10y agoI might agree or disagree depending on the details. Lower latency? Yeah, CPU wins easily. 4k resolution 2D composition? Well, GPU is pretty likely to win this one... CPU has pretty low latency, easily better than what GPU can achieve. But on the other hand GPU has insane bandwidth, high degree of parallelism and hardware ROPs.
- Derpdiherp 10y agoIt's really going to depend on what you're doing with the graphics. As soon as you start emulating basic shaders for effects on the CPU by comparing and writing to a screens worth of pixels you'll see where the bottleneck ends up. On the other hand if you're wanting to make something with the graphical complication of Mario or Mega Man ( purely sprites - no effects - lighting and other things maybe done with alpha blending ) then you might find it makes sense to stick to working with the CPU.
- rasz_pl 10y agoxserver?
- grimfang4 10y agoEver tried rotating and scaling dozens of high-def sprites per frame in software (CPU)? Not good. Plenty of games can benefit from that ability. Besides that, you can render so many more sprites if you properly batch them. I could get maybe a few hundred identical particles going around 60 fps with software rendering. With the GPU, you can make particle systems with thousands of sprites (or tens of thousands with a GPU newer than 2012).