3 ms·
In this scenario, low latency would be a lot more useful than high throughput.
by kbolino 1y ago
In this scenario, low latency would be a lot more useful than high throughput.
- lxgr 1y agoWhy? Both high latency and low throughput (given large asset sizes) mean longer waiting times.
- kbolino 1y agoWait, why large asset sizes? Aren't we talking about "reduced texture sizes" etc.? To me, this also implies reduced video sizes, compressed audio, and so on. So the scenario as I understand it is that, broadly, no individual asset is that large, but all of them together exceed what can fit in RAM. In that case, there would be a working set of loaded assets which is smaller than all available assets, and consequently, there would be a need to load different assets on demand quickly. So yeah, latency would be more important than throughput, though of course you would still need halfway decent throughput (time-to-last-byte is a kind of latency, after all).