[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b53a5ca27910c43d3fd1687130d56334@exys.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:17:04 +0200
From: aep <aep@...s.org>
To: <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Hello
> Actually, it might have. Especially with integrated Intel graphics,
> if I'm not mistaken there is no "video memory"; the graphics
> controller just uses part of main memory for video purposes, right?
sandy bridge and stuff? I am slighly behind current x86 tech, so i
don't know, but it's just an implementation detail anyway.
The hardware part of copying CPU to GPU memory is barely relevant
anymore.
GFX nowadays is all about shoving the whole program into the gpu, so
the cpu can do other things, i.e. GLSL.
In 1980 you had to load stuff back and forth to manipulate pixels,
nowadays you just tell the gpu to manipulate the pixels in a bulk
without ever loading the frame in main memory.
Xorg is quite backwards in that perpective, as it is designed for
drawing UI's on any arbitrary device. You probably could draw on a
printer.
Fortunately we have DRI now which allows us to just bypass all of this
mess and go to the gpu directly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
