- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 18:11:25 +0100
- 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