don't rely too much on software

[inopiaCGA]

it's useful when you want guarenteed real time performance for example for uncompressed video i/o or time critical audio programming.

Well ofcourse, you can think a good use of every common misuse if you try hard enough. However, there are betters ways to solve such problems like using realtime priorities on processes and such, or simply using a realtime operating system. Also, we were (at some point anyway) talking about software and software quality. I was merely posting an example, and never intended to go into a pissing contest with you.

we're talking about two different things and you've missed my point.

You've seem to have missed mine entirely as well. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though

Just to be nitpicking i would say that 2d could or could not be faster than 3d. Especially on the Amiga since the blitter only could blitt in planar mode. So if you needed to say read a pixel, rotate it and draw it again you had to convert planar pixels to chunky, rotate it and convert back to planar. This made effects like rotation be slower than effects like plasma. Todays GPU?s has strongpoints and weakpoints just like this so there is noway to say if 2d is slower/faster than 3d without having to look at the actuall processing being done. This becomes especially troublesome when you have to read back data from the GPU, if that is an requirement for your process the time render will skyrocket.

Finally someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I agree with you that if you're switching back and forth between GPU and CPU processing you are hogging the databus wich does serious damage to the framerate. But, I cannot think of any effects I would use that cannot be done entirely on the GPU (I'm sure you could think of some if you think hard enough though).

On unified memory architectures (like the xbox) however, they can be mixed more easily. But can you say that either method is slow because it doesn't mix well with the other?

[DrEskaton]

Originally posted by inopiaCGA
[ I was merely posting an example, and never intended to go into a pissing contest with you.

dude, chill. I was just pointing out there is sometimes applications where it's done.

It's relevant cause I've seen very highend very stable commercial software that does stuff like this (locks a cpu for realtime processing).

About the whole 2d processing thing, there's some circumstances that combinations of 2d filters will use more processing power than commonly done 3d transforms ok? eg if I render a scene with a bunch of 2d GPU filters on it, blurs, defocuses, glows,keys it quite possible the card will spend more cycles on the 2d processing than on rendering the scene.

Just trying to make the point that it's not always true that 3d requires more computational power but I probably didn't explain it very well. Not trying to get in any competition with anyone.

[inopiaCGA]

Oh ah, in that case I guess we seem to agree I just though the example of realtime processing systems seems to be stretching the context of the original discussion a bit far for me. The post I replied to was about dtp and graphics (adobe and the like) programs and not about realtime processing systems (in wich case you're completely right)

Anyway, why would a program need to actually reserve clockcycles? If the process is set to 'realtime' the other processes would only get cycles if the realtime process was blocked, or am I mistaken? This is not a discussion argument, just an honest question.

[Stuart]

thank you Stuart for standing up, being a man, and clearing up what you meant by your words

wasn't really clarifying, more like reiterating. It's all there in my 1P.

as per the dead horse, I think cobain had the advantage of blowing off the top of his skull at a point in his career when he was really resonating with teen angst. Had Idol done the same after, say, recording ready steady go I'm sure he might garner a similar following. Instead he got old and became a successful pop rocker with a distinct punk influence. Happens to the best of them. To wit, Sting.



Dr., surely there are many cases where a 2D effect will take longer to chug than a 3D one. As a general rule, however, I would be comfortable making the argument that that is not the predominant case.