On 11/27/2009 04:56 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Physics don't. A two dimensional screen will never be able to more than
> simulate 3D. 3D requires more dead dinosaurs, coal and/or other sources of
> electrical energy than 2D to produce.
This isn't necessarily the case, in theory or in practice. I used an
ammeter to do some measurements of this on my T41[1] several releases ago[2],
and in general compositing the desktop using 3d hardware used slightly less
energy than running with desktop effects turned off.
Which is to say, if the 3d hardware can do something easily, it may use more
energy for the GPU than using 2d acceleration only, but that translates to
less energy doesn't necessarily mean more power for the whole system. If you
do more complex 3d things, yes, it will take more power, but the act of using
the 3d hardware instead of the 2d hardware can be more efficient in terms
of energy.
[1] that's 2373-9FU for those wondering.
[2] a bit after compiz came into existance
--
Peter
I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is.
-- L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949;
quoted by Eshbach in _Over My Shoulder_.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
