On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Stefan Seifert <n...@detonation.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:15:36 Martin Spott wrote: > >> Even though a 2.8 GHz Socket 940 Opteron is by far not state of the art >> in these days, I think this scenario is a sufficient proof that the >> statement "FG itself isn't CPU limited" doesn't hold. > > As are the 100%. If the application is bound by the graphics card's > performance, the CPU cannot reach 100% utilization, since it would wait for > the graphics card to finish drawing. 100% CPU load show, that the graphics > card can execute drawing instructions faster than the CPU can generate them. > Thus the application is CPU limited.
You are assuming that - the graphics driver uses something other than busy waiting. - the graphics driver doesn't need CPU power. - OSG doesn't need CPU power. Frame rates don't mean much, when talking about FG itself (that is, not the graphics/rendering). I was arguing that parallelizing whatever processing FG proper is doing (ie. FDM, nasal, etc) is not gonna give a significant FPS boost in the general case. Of course, for future scalability it is a good idea. Could also be a good idea for certain cpu intensive nasal tasks, such as wildfire. -- Csaba/Jester ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel