Here's a Windows fun fact
Here's a Windows fun fact
You're viewing a single thread.
22 comments
-
Perhaps I’m just lost or the fool here, but wouldn’t it be usual that the overhead of spawning a thread would be much higher than just drawing the next pixel? If the post is true, could someone explain to me how a renderer with so much thread contention could optimize drawing on a CPU?
-
Yeah the explanation can't be true. It would take a single thread like 0 milliseconds to render the background image. That must be a shitpost.
That being said, I can imagine the first part being true due to some random windows fuckery
-
Also the potential number of threads would be in the millions if you used the entire color pallette on your background (limited by your display resolution). Even if you aren't approaching that, surely most backgrounds have color values in at least the tens of thousands even with color compression. That just moves the bottleneck to your number of cores. Even the thread switching alone would have astronomically more overhead than just having one thread render the whole background.
-
-
sounds like shitpost material to me.
-
Definitely a joke. If you used a thread per pixel, the OS would grind to a halt trying to spawn a million threads to render a typical photo. That's like GBs of RAM worth of thread overhead.
-
-
22 comments