Invisible wrote:
> In the uncompressed case, you take some data on disk and copy it to the 
> framebuffer. 

Not quite. You need to align the scanlines, perhaps reorder the R, G, 
and B, etc. You can't just blit the whole image to the screen like you 
could with an Amiga.  And I'd highly expect that it goes through RAM on 
the way between disk and screen.

> In the compressed case, you take some data on disk, copy it 
> to RAM, perform a vast amount of highly compute-intensive work on it, 
> and *then* copy it to the framebuffer. Obviously the latter shouldn't 
> use less CPU power than the former.

Depends on how expensive decompressing into the frame buffer is compared 
to moving the uncompressed data in and out of RAM.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message