3 ms·

I don't get it, sure it's impressive, kind of like a Rube Goldberg machine is impressive. But let's step back a second - isn't it a sign of a monumental failure

• rottencupcakes 17y ago
  It really just shows that we're a bunch of web programming nerds.
• psyklic 17y ago
  No, not necessarily. You've been spoiled by GPUs. Try filling any modern screen buffer (>1024x768) pixel-by-pixel, just as software rasterizers do, even with just a solid color. You'll find it takes a long and quite frankly unacceptable time (for real-time apps at least), even with modern processors. Even at 1024x768 (@ 25 frames/sec), you are given just ~300 cycles/pixel, which is gone quickly after slow memory accesses and multi-cycle instructions.
  • DarkShikari 17y ago
    Try filling any modern screen buffer (>1024x768) pixel-by-pixel Sure, if you completely throw away SIMD, things might be slow. you are given just ~300 cycles/pixel, which is gone quickly after slow memory accesses Memory accesses are pipelined and are generally not slow; an L1 cache access is 3 cycles and prefetching on modern CPUs is generally flawless for such situations. multi-cycle instructions. Since when do you need multiplies to fill a screen with a solid color? Even if you had to do YUV -> RGB conversion, that is done much faster with a multi-dimensional LUT than with multiplies (see swscale). Of course it's even faster in SIMD. It's quite possible to do very fast rasterization on modern hardware without a GPU. It's just that people generally don't do it, because everyone has GPUs to do it for them.