On Feb 10, 09 09:09:41 +0100, Mark van Doesburg wrote:
Having a scratch buffer, the size of the frame buffer would make things much simpler and reduce the amount of commands the CPU would have to generate. This would waste up to 16MB of memory, and double the amount of memory bandwidth required for an overlapping copy. But I wonder if it might still be faster.
It certainly would, because you actually have to wait for the previous
1-pixel-wide copy to finish in order to continue...
That, and cache line issues kill you here.
It will probably even be worse with tiled framebuffers.
CU
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf