[geeks] Itanium 32 bit performace.... hahahaha

[Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 jdboyd at jdboyd.zill.net wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:15:57PM -0800, Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 jdboyd at jdboyd.zill.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * I determined that it was transform bound by noting that it ran no
> > >   faster in a 320x240 window than it did in a 800x600 window.
> >
> > Then that is not transform based, but rather raster based.
>
> If it runs the same reguardless of resolution, I thought that meant that
> the hold up was something other than raster speed.  After all, there are
> less pixels at 320x240 than there are in an 800x600 window.  Maybe I'm
> having a dense moment.

Transforms are usually the same regardless of window size, the
rasterization is the process of mapping those transforms in the
viewport/window. I.e. if you have 50,000 polygons in your scene, you still
need to consider them regardless of your viewport size (that is one of the
drawbacks of raster based gfx, as opposed to image based gfx).

In any case, most moder FeeCee processors have enough oomph due to their
3Dnow, MMX extentions to handle geometry relatively nicelly.