Posts: 8.598
Threads: 105
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
168
Location: 127.0.0.1
(03-19-2015, 06:46 PM)xemnas99 Wrote: PCSX2 is a very CPU demanding application.
whoops, a misunderstanding. I meant the factors needed on reducing the cpu overhead. I will edit my posts to make it a little bit understandable.
We're supposed to be working as a team, if we aren't helping and suggesting things to each other, we aren't working as a team.
- Refraction
Posts: 2.107
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
37
I think the only thing we know for sure is that lower graphics driver overhead would give pcsx2 more cpu time.
Who knows what kind of difference it would actually make.
Posts: 6.069
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
167
Location: Grenoble, France
The purpose of the new API is to reduce CPU usage to submit data to the CPU.
1/ They remove error checking (good for us, it will reduce latency) but I'm sure error checking is not the biggest part of the driver. Some stuff is already done to reduce this cost anyway
2/ They move the ultra-optimized driver layer that create command into the application.
=> application will need to do the driver job
=> painful to implement but you have the chance to hand tailor this layer for your application instead of a generic implementation (note driver are already MT)
This part gives a huge speed up if you know what the application will do. For example you know texture that are often use on the scene so the important texture to cache.
However there is a terrible issue for PCSX2, we don't know what the application (game) will really do. At least we know a bit GSdx behavior so maybe you can improve it but it won't be easy.
The new API won't remove barriere and flush when we toggle hardware configuration, neither removes texture transfer.