3 ms·
That's really it-- it's a waste of resources, but it's such a tiny amount that all these effects are almost free. There's no point in not having a little fluff
by Firehawke 5y ago
That's really it-- it's a waste of resources, but it's such a tiny amount that all these effects are almost free. There's no point in not having a little fluff that makes the experience a bit more fun.
- Legion 5y ago> it's a waste of resources I always laugh at the people that take this notion way too seriously. If their CPU is only 98% idle, it's a travesty. I imagine the same people driving around in cars stripped of all paneling and upholstery, because every little bit of unnecessary weight hurts performance! > There's no point in not having a little fluff that makes the experience a bit more fun. Well put. Considering how much time we spend staring at these stupid little number boxes, things that makes the experience a little more enjoyable are worthwhile, even if they're dumb and frivolous.
- babypuncher 5y agoI don't consider it a waste. These features provide enjoyment, which has value. As far as software goes, they are no more wasteful than video games or media players. Units of energy expended per unit of "enjoyment" is certainly a factor to consider, but in this case the extra energy consumed is very minimal.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoNot really, these effects are nothing to modern graphics cards.
- the_only_law 5y agoOn that note, I’ve kinda wondered what kinda of wonderful looking modernized replacement for XFishtank we could have on modern GPUs.