On 2010-09-18 13:57 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 09/18/10 07:49, Mats Klingberg wrote:
> > On Friday September 17 2010 19.53.01, Lie Ryan wrote:
> >> It depends. Updating 800x600 screen at 24-bit color 30 times per second
> >> requires 800*600*24*30 = 34560 bytes/s = 329 MB/s which is larger
> >
On 09/18/10 07:49, Mats Klingberg wrote:
> On Friday September 17 2010 19.53.01, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> It depends. Updating 800x600 screen at 24-bit color 30 times per second
>> requires 800*600*24*30 = 34560 bytes/s = 329 MB/s which is larger
>
> Shouldn't that be bits/s, or 800*600*3*30 = 41 MB
On Friday September 17 2010 19.53.01, Lie Ryan wrote:
> It depends. Updating 800x600 screen at 24-bit color 30 times per second
> requires 800*600*24*30 = 34560 bytes/s = 329 MB/s which is larger
Shouldn't that be bits/s, or 800*600*3*30 = 41 MB/s?
Mats Klingberg
_
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
> It depends. Updating 800x600 screen at 24-bit color 30 times per second
> requires 800*600*24*30 = 34560 bytes/s = 329 MB/s which is larger
> than the size of typical Video Memory, and the first version of PCI
> Express (introduced 2003) is on
On a modern PC, this is no problem at all.
We are actually doing this with a 1920 x 1080 x 32-bit bitmap, at 60 FPS, on
a 2-year old PC
You can easily test your GPU <-> CPU bandwidth using this tool:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gpubench
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
> O
On 07/30/10 03:37, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2010-07-29 11:30 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> If you are trying to redraw in realtime, eg. 30 FPS or so, I don't
>> think you're going to be able to. There is just not enough GPU
>> bandwidth (and probably not enough CPU).
>
> Updating an 800x600 texture
