Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rocket!dove
From: dove@rocket.UUCP (Webster Dove)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Why is CopyArea so much slower than the hardware?
Message-ID: <DOVE.89Jun18230831@rocket.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jun 89 14:08:31 GMT
Sender: news@rocket.UUCP
Distribution: comp
Organization: Sanders Advanced Technology Dept.
Lines: 21
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.44.4 of Tue May 12 1987 on rocket (berkeley-unix)

We are doing some 2D visual simulation and on SUN 3/260 with MIT X, (I
have also heard with SUN X11/NEWS), Parallax, and Megatek Sigma 20
(SUN 4) the CopyArea function is many times slower than the pixrect
equivalent.  I have seen 250 16x16 targets moved in .1 sec with
pixrect, and barely 1/10th that with CopyArea.  No network limit, no
client CPU limit, all server.

Is there something fundamental to CopyArea that makes it not fit the
hardware well?

Web

Please reply to me via mail if possible as I don't catch up to this
group often.

uunet!rocket!dove
--
		Dr. Webster Dove
		Computing Systems and Architectures
		Advanced Signal Processing Engineering (ASPEN) Dept.
		Sanders Associates (a Lockheed Company)