I just read that FMOD’s software code is faster than hardware equivalent 😉 How great, seriously, it just proove that U have fuckingly optimized routines ! But…
What’s hardware task if you do everything in software, what the matter about OpenGL accelerators then ? Software drawing routines should be then enough ?
And then you showed it was run on a P3-500 ! Does the sound card’s processor runs at 500 MHz too ? And what’s its job if that the CPU that do the whole task ? I personaly think that for 24bits/96KHz/8channels (4 stereo channels), current sound cards specifications should be enough.
In the meanwhile, you can also decrease the CPU usage by restoring some basic tasks to the sound card.
PS : What about QNX support ? http://www.qnx.com ! This is an incredible operating system that worth support…
- Kochise asked 15 years ago
Welcome in the wonderful world where device driver coding is an ART ! Will not trouble that forum anymore with my disturbing statements, thanks to have patiently replied to all my posts 😉
PS : I’m currently a Windows coder, but still fond of embedded coding, as I personnaly do this like Jewelery / every piece of code I made MUST be some kind of art ! I was in a way impressed to find a ‘good’ driver that will not ‘darken’ my products, my jewels, a product I can trust in.
Nope, I not wanted to say that ‘nothing’ is better than ‘something’, just that the comparison you gave between FMOD software and hardware is a bit foolish. I don’t speak about your hardware support, but how much your FMOD is lighter than other stuffs (see your greatly made ‘Comparison’ page). Don’t feel offended, I’m just trying to say that the speed rate you gave for CPU computation isn’t really important is this case, because that’s the sound card’s job to release the CPU from thoses tasks. Otherwise, why will you byu a sound card if you can do this by software emulation, then using a parallel port dongle to listen to the music ? That’s the same for 3D video card : what the mess I’m about the buy that powerful ATI 9700 Pro if a software emulation engine is speeder ?
Explain me CLEARLY if you based such result on a massive usage of the dedicated sound hardware (to release the CPU from tasks, and reserve it for another and more important one), or by optimizing your routines with nicely emulated DSP/MAC instructions ? However, in both cases : GREAT JOB !
YES, I’ve only a few knowledge of the sound card market, nowadays at least. I was used to use an INCREDIBLE sound computer called the ATARI Falcon030 (don’t laught please) that was clocked at ONLY 16MHz, but due to its MOTOROLA DSP56001 was able to compete with most of the sound cards running on stronger computer. That’s the matter !
I’m also an embedded coder, and code efficiency is one of the prior goal to achieve. No MIPS to waste. Every other hardware than PCs bases their powerfulness on the sharing of CPU tasks against focused coprocessors. And YES, I’m speaking about an ideal world that will hardly exists, especially if NOTHING is made in such a way.
Sorry to hear that you have to disable hardwired features. In this case, the CYRIX MediaGX is the PERFECT processor, there is no (or hardly) such features 😉 Still isapointed to know that when I buy an expensive and featured hardware, it’s useless since there is an efficient driver. I know also the problem, I’ve bought a MATROX G550, and the OpenGL driver sucks a bit (not anymore since their last driver release, the 8.36), and pseudo-useful HeadCasting system 😉
PS : Sorry to have sounded so harsh, it was not the purpose :/
Please login first to submit.