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

Reply via email to