4 ms·
> That's the job of the GPU driver, mostly. I think you have to reason this one out. Your statement, to me, doesn’t hold water. Let’s start with HDR. That req
by dagmx 4y ago
> That's the job of the GPU driver, mostly.
I think you have to reason this one out. Your statement, to me, doesn’t hold water.
Let’s start with HDR. That requires the content that’s being rendered to have higher bit depth. Not all of this is stored in GPU memory at once, a lot is stored in system RAM and shuffled in and out.
Now take fluid animations. The interpolation of positions isn’t done solely on the GPU. It’s coordinated by the CPU. I don’t think this one necessarily adds ram usage but I think your comment is incorrect.
And lastly with resolutions, the GPU is only responsible for the processing and output. You still need high resolution data going in. This is easily observed by viewing any low resolution image. It will be heavily blurred or pixelated on a high resolution screen. That stands to reason that the OS needs to have high enough resolution assets to accommodate high resolution screens. Now these aren’t all stored on disc necessarily as high resolution graphics but they have to be stored in memory as such.
——
As to the rest of your points, they basically boil down to: I don’t want it so I don’t see why a default install should have it. Other people do want a highly feature full browser that can keep up with the modern web. And given that webviews are a huge part of application rendering today, the browser actively contributes to memory usage.
- doubled112 4y agoI've got 8GB of RAM on my GPU. Could we stop shuffling it out? Do more of the work there, directly?
- dagmx 4y agoUnintuitively, your two questions are somewhat at odds with each other. The more work you do on the GPU, the more you need to shuffle because the more GPU memory you’d use AND the more state you’d need to check back on the CPU side, causing sync stalls. It’s not insurmountable, and macOS puts a lot more of its work on the GPU for example. Windows is a little more conservative in that regard. Here are some more confounding factors: - Every app needs one or more buffers to draw into. Especially with hidpi screens this can eat up memory quick. The compositor can juggle these to try and get some efficiency, but it can’t move all the state to the GPU due to latency. - you also need to deal with swap memory. You’d ultimately need to shuffle date back to the system ram and then to disk and back which is fairly slow. It’s much better theoretically on APUs though. Theoretically, APUs stand to solve a lot of these issues because they blur the lines of GPU and CPU memory.
- SSLy 4y agosure https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/gdk/_content/gc/system/overviews/directstorage/directstorage-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/gdk/_content/gc/sys...
- dagmx 4y agoDirect storage doesn’t address the majority of these concerns though. It only means the CPU doesn’t need to load data first to shuffle it over, but it doesn’t help if the CPU does need to access said data or schedule it. It’s largely applicable mainly to games where resource access is known ahead of time.
- deadly_syn 4y agoWouldnt a desktop interface also be a predefined set of resources? Usually with far less visual flare too.
- dagmx 4y agoOnly if you’re dealing with just the desktop environment and don’t allow the user to load applications. Or if those apps also didn’t allow dynamicism of any kind, like loading images from a website
- phkahler 4y ago>> Let’s start with HDR. That requires the content that’s being rendered to have higher bit depth. Not all of this is stored in GPU memory at once, a lot is stored in system RAM and shuffled in and out. HDR can still fit in 32bit pixels. At 4k X 2k we have 8 megapixels or 32MB frame buffer. With triple buffering that's still under 100MB. Video games have been doing all sorts of animation for decades. It's not a lot of code and a modern CPU can actually composite a desktop in software pretty well. We use the GPU for speed, but that doesn't have to mean more memory. The difference between 2000 and 2023 is the quantity of data to move and like I said, that about 100MB