4 ms·
Are you a graphics programmer, or are you just saying this because that's true in the CPU world (where you have experience)? From both my own and my colleagues'
by achierius 3y ago
Are you a graphics programmer, or are you just saying this because that's true in the CPU world (where you have experience)? From both my own and my colleagues' experiences, I would 100% disagree: the nature of GPU architectures means you are forced to deal with super low-level details from the very beginning. Part of this is because graphics (and GPGPU compute) programming is inherently performance-constrained: if it wasn't, you could just do your work on the CPU with much less of a headache. Even just generally though, the path to running code on a GPU is much simpler — the hardware does less work for the programmer, there's no operating system to manage threads, everything's a single binary, etc. — which means that there's less to insulate you from what's underneath.
- charcircuit 3y ago>Are you a graphics programmer, or are you just saying this because that's true in the CPU world (where you have experience) Neither. >the nature of GPU architectures means you are forced to deal with super low-level details from the very beginning. Not everyone is trying to push the hardware to its limits by making the best thing possible with the hardware. Plenty of projects can get along fine with a A/AA renderer or with unoptimized shaders. >there's no operating system to manage threads There literally is. Or if you disagree the firmware manages the threads.