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.