Hacker News Reader

Comment by flohofwoe | Hacker News Reader

That's a silly statement. If you want to place single pixels, a GPU won't help in any way. The most efficient way would be to write pixels with the CPU into a mapped GPU texture, and then render this texture as fullscreen quad. That's hardly more efficient than going through the system's windowing system.

For applications like emulators, or making vintage games (like Doom) run on modern platforms, that approach makes a lot of sense.

View on HN

Most vintage systems use something way more complex than a pure CPU-controlled framebuffer for graphics. They generally have some sorts of pre-defined "tiles" used to implement a fixed-width character mode, with the addition of a limited number of "sprites" overlaid in hardware. These video modes could be implemented efficiently by modern GPU's.

Only if you don't have a cycle correct emulator inbetween. Those old school system relied on hard real time timings down to the clock cycle to let the CPU control the color palette, sprite properties etc... at the right raster position within a frame. Modern GPUs don't allow such a tight synchronization between the CPU and GPU, so the best way is to run the entire emulation single-threaded on the CPU, including the video decoding.

(the resulting framebuffer can then of course be dumped into a GPU texture for rendering, but that just offers a bit more flexibility, eg embedding the emulated system into a 3D rendered world)

It depends what you mean by "hard real time". In theory, user input you get while scanning out pixel x might change pixel x + 1, and this leaves you with no choice but rendering single pixels in a strictly serial way. In practice, no existing emulator cares about that.

It's not about user input, but the CPU writing video hardware registers at just the right raster position mid-frame (to recycle sprites, change the color palette, or even the resolution). Home computer emulators for systems like the C64 or the Amstrad CPC need to do this at exactly the right clock cycle, otherwise modern (demo scene) demos wouldn't render correctly.

PS: of course one could build a GPU command list to render such a video frame somehow, but I bet just building this command list is more expensive then just doing the video decode with the CPU. It would basically come down to one draw command per (emulated system) pixel in the worst case.

But wouldn't the GPU help if you were mapping e.g. 256x192 virtual pixels to say 1024x768? I.e., each of the pixels from the low-res space being represented by a NxM patch of actual screen pixels, like a Win32 GDI StretchBlt() call.

If you had a frame buffer for the actual screen and you tried to do even a 1 to 2x2 expansion on the CPU's time, that'd have to be a serious speed hit. Presumably GPU hardware can do that sort of thing.

Yes, for fancy upscaling or applying pixel shader effects like CRT filters, doing the final pass on the GPU definitely makes sense. This would no longer be a "minimal" library though.

Window system composers should also be able to upscale bitmaps on their own though, and nothing prevents them to use the GPU for this.

Doing this through the GPU is actually somehow A LOT slower on at least Windows than going through the windowing system.

>That's hardly more efficient than going through the system's windowing system.

My intuition says otherwise but I admit I don't have math on hand to back it up.

Ok it's most likely slightly slower, but not enough that it matters. Frame latency might actually be lower though if the result doesn't need to go through a swapchain AND the window system composer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com