4 ms·
Doesn't the CPU/GPU bottleneck which is already assumed to be slow actually provide the perfect opportunity for abstraction over a network protocol? Sending "w
by radarsat1 3y ago
Doesn't the CPU/GPU bottleneck which is already assumed to be slow actually provide the perfect opportunity for abstraction over a network protocol? Sending "what to draw" and "how" (shaders) over the wire infrequently and issuing cheap draw commands on demand? I think GPUs provide a better situation for a network first model than was available when X was designed.
- TylerE 3y agoYou can send draw commands without making that the fundamental underlying operating model. GPUs are highly complex and performance under generic wrappers.
- uecker 3y agoNo, he is correct. The GPU on the other side of the PCI is a remote computer.
- TylerE 3y agoHuge difference over operating over a PCI bus with gargantuan bandwidth and near zero latency, and working over random network connections.
- uecker 3y agoCertainly a huge difference, but if you want good performance you need to treat this as a remote buffer management problem in both cases.
- TylerE 3y agoSorry, but I can’t take the suggestion that the PCI bus and the internet should be treated the same seriously. You’re telling 4 or 5 orders of magnitude difference. Maybe more on some specs. It’s like saying you should use the same file access algorithms for a RAM disk and punch cards. No you shouldn’t!
- uecker 3y agoYou need to compare to memory on the main board.
- kllrnohj 3y agoOnly if everyone agrees on a central rendering model & feature set, which simply isn't the case. 2D rendering is not a solved problem, there are many different takes on it. Insisting all GUIs on a given device use a single system is simply not realistic, which is why nobody actually uses any of the X rendering commands other than "draw pixmap" (aka, just be a dumb compositor)