Message-Id: <m0y9Q1B-000S2iC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: James W Sager Iii <sager+@andrew.cmu.edu>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:02:27 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: The future of graphics programming
In-reply-to: <MoyL6cO00YUs0BH140@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: bulk

James W Sager Iii <sager+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Um, 20,000 polygons per frame?
> with a minimal speed of 24 fps, this is 400,000 polygons per sec.
> A fast pentium processeor does about 2-4 mil instructions per second.

2 or 4 MIPS! are you really sure? I think that a P100 is 20 times faster than 
that.

> So like if you could put a polygon down 1/10 as fast as you could do a basic
> additoion problem this is feasable. But with with current hardware
> constraints, we can do maybe 1/10000 as fast... 3 orders of magnitude.
> I don't forsee computers becoming that much more fast in the next couple
> years. I mean I'd like faster software than allegro. I mean, who doesn't
> want faster software, the simple fact is that no one has done it, so I
> just work with what I got.


SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013