W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 18:11:25 +0100
Message-ID: <5372523D.6000308@hoppipolla.co.uk>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
  > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM, David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The algorithms don't have to run as fast as possible, they only have to
>> run fast enough that the system is responsive to the user.  If there is
>> a motion graphic, you need to run the algorithm fast enough that the
>> motion isn't choppy.
>
>
> That's not correct.  For image processing and compression, you want to use
> as many cores as you can so the operation completes more quickly.  For the
> rest, using more cores means that the algorithm can do a better job, giving
> a more accurate physics simulation, detecting motion more quickly and
> accurately, and so on.
>

I think the problem that I have with this API is "the number of cores 
that exist" isn't obviously a good proxy for "the number of cores that 
are available". It I have N cores and am already using M cores for e.g. 
decompressing video, N-M is probably a much better estimate of the 
available resources than N. I suppose for some applications e.g. games, 
scientific simulations, people are likely to set up their system with 
M=0 before they start. However that isn't obviously the common case.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:11:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:28 UTC