> > I still maintain that immediate mode renderering is an inefficient algorithm > > designed to favor the use of memory over computations. A better algorithm > > will always win out given enough time to overtake the optimized versions of > > the more inefficient algorithms. > > Perhaps you've forgotten what you originally said? The kyro is a graphics card. > > But still, hand-waving v real-world pragmatic performance figures matter > more, and here your Kyro and P4 lose. > > It really doesn't matter if algo (a) is better than (b). To progress > your argument you need to prove[1] that algo (a) is at least as good as, > and as cheap, in software on the P4 than either some other algo or the > same one in a graphics card. Whilst still allowing that processor to > perform other functions. > > [1] with numbers not with rhetoric.
The first paragraph (the one you chose to quote) has nothing to do with implementing it in software. That was an entirely different discussion. This discussion is currently about the new topic of whether or not scene-capture tile-based rendering is more efficient than immediate mode rendering. I maintain that it is, and have included my arguments in my last post. If you want to get back to the topic of software rendering, I would be more than happy to oblige. But please don't quote arguments for a point in one debate and show them to be inadequate for proving a point in a prior debate. The top paragraph was not intended to support any argument regarding software rendering. -Raystonn _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
