[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:11:37 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Hello
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 06:17:04PM +0200, aep wrote:
> >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.
The whole conversation was about purely unaccelerated graphics, where
the X server is (or at least historicaly was) constantly memcpy'ing
huge amounts of data out of video memory (e.g. for dragging a window).
GPU is irrelevant to this usage.
Rich
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.
