Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Green Compiler ? Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:57:52 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 19 Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <12-12-033@comp.compilers> References: <12-12-010@comp.compilers> <12-12-013@comp.compilers> <12-12-023@comp.compilers> <12-12-027@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1356817963 95640 64.57.183.58 (29 Dec 2012 21:52:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: architecture, performance Posted-Date: 29 Dec 2012 16:52:42 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:817 On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:11:23 +0100, "Nils M Holm" wrote: >Why does a game *have to* use the maximum number of frames per >second? When a given number of frames per second is sufficient, >in the sense that additional frames will not make the video output >any smoother, why increase the frame rate further? Unfortunately, games are hardly the only offenders. When I worked in medical imaging (circa mid 90's), there was a requirement to render cineloops at 66fps regardless of image size, pixel depth or 2D vs 3D processing. There were no 3-D GPUs and SIMD CPUs of the day (UltraSparc, Pentium MMX, etc.) were not equal to many of the imaging tasks. We had to use custom FPGA based hardware to achieve the required frame rates at a (halfway) reasonable (to the user) cost. AFAIA, medical cineloops still are required to be rendered at 66fps. Doesn't matter that 40fps is faster than almost any human can see. George