Compressed game data on the 360 still needs to be uncompressed. CPU core taken.

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

*Edit begins here*

I recommend you read the whole thread before you post. Many posters have flown off topic. Some mention the system's RAM and some mention the disc read speed. This topic is about how the 360 console's main CPU needs time to decompress the files that hold the main game content. The more they compress the packages to fit inside a regular DVD 9 the more end-user decompressing needs to be done.

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

vitz3

QFT!!

Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

I agree. You can compress 50gb down to 9 and fit it on a DVD but you have to remeber when you load your content it will take way longer to decompress then processes.Wasdie

I agree. You can compress 50gb down to 9 and fit it on a DVD but you have to remeber when you load your content it will take way longer to decompress then processes.Wasdie

on the other hand it does save time when we're talking about reading from a disc.

You also have to realize that alot of time data is compressed and not decompressed. Every texture in every game ever made is using lossy compression. If lossing %10 quality means reducing its space by %40+, most developers will do so. And this will be the same on both systems due to memory limitations.

A bunch of uncompressed data on a BR drive will be useless and impractical if they can only load a tiny handfull of it in memory.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

[QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.TripleXAlexXx

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

Oh wow. I see another lem walking with a white cane.

All Graphics processors in today's console's do decompression of textures on the GPU. The data that still relies on the CPU is still quite large. Uncompressed 5.1 sound is done on the CPU, same with geometry and video files.

You go on and on about how the GPU does decompression on the fly but you forgot that you just painted yourself into a corner.

There is a limit as to how fast the GPU can access that data from Main shared RAM. The available bandwidth of the GPU is very limited. This will result in lower quality textures, and pop-in.

When the 360 begins to deal with high-quality but highly compressed texture data we begin to see it's flaws. For example the texture data in Gears of War is the victim of this limited bandwidth. I and many others have witnessed textures pop-in and look plain ugly while the 360's GPU tries to play catch-up.

There is quite literally a physical limit as to how fast the textures can be decompressed. That little decoder can only work so fast.

Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

Not all of it. Since when does the GPU decompress audio. And yes, it is in realtime taking up real processing power. It will slow things down reguardless. It can't do two things at once. No single processing core can do that. It can only processes one thing at a time.

It depends really. If you stream compressed data, then yeah it will take a lot of CPU power. However, if you decompress the data during load time, this is a different story. A Hard Drive is really the best solution to kill both birds with one stone, but Microsoft will have to remove that limitation that they have placed on developers to do so.Xeratule

Yep, the HDD sure does solve it. Except, not all 360's have HDD's. And MS has already stated they don't want any devs creating games knowing some 360 gamer would miss out. So, they all miss out.

[QUOTE="Xeratule"]It depends really. If you stream compressed data, then yeah it will take a lot of CPU power. However, if you decompress the data during load time, this is a different story. A Hard Drive is really the best solution to kill both birds with one stone, but Microsoft will have to remove that limitation that they have placed on developers to do so.The_Crucible

Yep, the HDD sure does solve it. Except, not all 360's have HDD's. And MS has already stated they don't want any devs creating games knowing some 360 gamer would miss out. So, they all miss out.

M$ doesn't want them to make a game require the HDD, that doesn't mean devs aren't doing it.

Actually I've read it's faster to load data to memory if it's compressed then it is to load it from disk. Or it can be if compressed correctly.

apparently reading and then decompressing the file takes less time then reading the whole uncompressed file.

[QUOTE="TripleXAlexXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

Oh wow. I see another lem walking with a white cane.

All Graphics processors in today's console's do decompression of textures on the GPU. The data that still relies on the CPU is still quite large. Uncompressed 5.1 sound is done on the CPU, same with geometry and video files.

You go on and on about how the GPU does decompression on the fly but you forgot that you just painted yourself into a corner.

There is a limit as to how fast the GPU can access that data from Main shared RAM. The available bandwidth of the GPU is very limited. This will result in lower quality textures, and pop-in.

When the 360 begins to deal with high-quality but highly compressed texture data we begin to see it's flaws. For example the texture data in Gears of War is the victim of this limited bandwidth. I and many others have witnessed textures pop-in and look plain ugly while the 360's GPU tries to play catch-up.

There is quite literally a physical limit as to how fast the textures can be decompressed. That little decoder can only work so fast.

Buddy, there is no such thing as "uncompressed 5.1" in video games unless you're talking about music. All audio in gaming is single-channel only, and the system's sound processor handles the mixing into 5.1 surround, or stereo, or mono, or whatever other audio option the player chooses. Video files are not used at all in real-time gameplay, except in tiny snippets, and geometry is tiny.

Actually I've read it's faster to load data to memory if it's compressed then it is to load it from disk. Or it can be if compressed correctly.

apparently reading and then decompressing the file takes less time then reading the whole uncompressed file.

GundamGuy0

It is true for lighting compressed files. But when you start having to compress 20 gbs in 9, it will take much more processing power.

Except its all done when the game LOADS:|WuTangG

What about games where data is streamed off the disk? It will slow down the streaming resulting in choppy framerates and pop-in textures.

Actually I've read it's faster to load data to memory if it's compressed then it is to load it from disk. Or it can be if compressed correctly.

apparently reading and then decompressing the file takes less time then reading the whole uncompressed file.

GundamGuy0

That sounds right to me. The CPU uncompressing data on the RAM would be faster then most media devices. If it was compressed the data you loaded from the DVD would be significantly less because the RAM can only hold so much uncompressed data. If the compression was 10X you would load 51MB from the DVD instead of 512MB for example.

Buddy, there is no such thing as "uncompressed 5.1" in video games unless you're talking about music. All audio in gaming is single-channel only, and the system's sound processor handles the mixing into 5.1 surround, or stereo, or mono, or whatever other audio option the player chooses. Video files are not used at all in real-time gameplay, except in tiny snippets, and geometry is tiny.

mjarantilla

Medal of Honor 2 (PS2 w/5.1 Dolby pro-Logic) and MGS4 (7.1 uncompressed audio) both say hi.

Here's an example of why compression is usually a good thing:

before i got my new laptop i used to use my old PC- an ancient machine- 2.5Ghz Celeron, 512MB RAM. anyway i had a .wav file & a mp3 file of the same song but had been compressed to mp3. my computer would play the mp3 file straight away whilst there was a noticeable delaywhen i tried to play the .wav file.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Buddy, there is no such thing as "uncompressed 5.1" in video games unless you're talking about music. All audio in gaming is single-channel only, and the system's sound processor handles the mixing into 5.1 surround, or stereo, or mono, or whatever other audio option the player chooses. Video files are not used at all in real-time gameplay, except in tiny snippets, and geometry is tiny.

vitz3

Medal of Honor 2 (PS2 w/5.1 Dolby pro-Logic) and MGS4 (7.1 uncompressed audio) both say hi.

Once again, the stored sound is not 5.1. The MIXING is 5.1 (or 7.1 in MGS4's case) and performed in real-time, but the sound files themselves are stored as single channel audio because the player's positioning and orientation changes unpredictably in real-time.

Buddy, there is no such thing as "uncompressed 5.1" in video games unless you're talking about music. All audio in gaming is single-channel only, and the system's sound processor handles the mixing into 5.1 surround, or stereo, or mono, or whatever other audio option the player chooses. Video files are not used at all in real-time gameplay, except in tiny snippets, and geometry is tiny.

mjarantilla

Uncompressed audio in general. Luckly there are good codecs for audio so it isn't as big of a problem. The real problem comes in with high-res textures. When a developer doesn't want to reuse textures.

Here's an example of why compression is usually a good thing:

before i got my new laptop i used to use my old PC- an ancient machine- 2.5Ghz Celeron, 512MB RAM. anyway i had a .wav file & a mp3 file of the same song but had been compressed to mp3. my computer would play the mp3 file straight away whilst there was a noticeable delaywhen i tried to play the .wav file.

CwlHeddwyn

.wav files are horrible codecs. MP3s are much better.

[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"]

Actually I've read it's faster to load data to memory if it's compressed then it is to load it from disk. Or it can be if compressed correctly.

apparently reading and then decompressing the file takes less time then reading the whole uncompressed file.

Sir_Graham

That sounds right to me. The CPU uncompressing data on the RAM would be faster then most media devices. If it was compressed the data you loaded from the DVD would be significantly less because the RAM can only hold so much uncompressed data. If the compression was 10X you would load 51MB from the DVD instead of 512MB for example.

OK, that's true. but I never said that the PS3 can't do the same. Since the cell's SPE's are more specialized for coding and decoding, they could simply offload that to one of em. Leaving 6 SPE's for the game.

OR, they could do what buddy up above says, decompress on the GPU (RSX).

[QUOTE="TripleXAlexXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

Oh wow. I see another lem walking with a white cane.

All Graphics processors in today's console's do decompression of textures on the GPU. The data that still relies on the CPU is still quite large. Uncompressed 5.1 sound is done on the CPU, same with geometry and video files.

You go on and on about how the GPU does decompression on the fly but you forgot that you just painted yourself into a corner.

There is a limit as to how fast the GPU can access that data from Main shared RAM. The available bandwidth of the GPU is very limited. This will result in lower quality textures, and pop-in.

When the 360 begins to deal with high-quality but highly compressed texture data we begin to see it's flaws. For example the texture data in Gears of War is the victim of this limited bandwidth. I and many others have witnessed textures pop-in and look plain ugly while the 360's GPU tries to play catch-up.

There is quite literally a physical limit as to how fast the textures can be decompressed. That little decoder can only work so fast.

First of all, we shouldn't even be bringing sound and video into this discussion. Decompressing audio is trivial when it comes to performance, since it's hardly demanding. Video is just as trivial, seeing as Microsoft has it's own propreitary MPEG4 codec WMV VC1 (HD), which has the quality very close to H.264, except at 1/5th the file size. Seeing as videos don't play during regular gameplay - decompression is trivial.

You are right about the bandwidth, however that is a completely different subject, seeing as you are not suspiciously changing your premise. First you were referring to CPU-binding compression, then you suggested you were referring to compression on binaries, and now you are switching tracks and pointing at the bandwidth being the limiting factor. It just sound to me like I am arguing again Google, and not you.

With that said, I find it ironic you say I painted myself into a corner, seeing as the PS3 suffers with similiar bandwidth issues. In essense, your retort (if it actually is your retort and not google's), has worked against your original premise. Due to the early generation Bluray drive found in PS3, seek times/read times off the Bluray disk are extremely slow, resulting in developers having to place redundant data on the disk in order to statistically boost data rates. In other words, you may find that each "level" has all it's nessesary data clustered into the same area of the disk - while at the same time a portion of this data is idential to the data found in another section of the disk, for another level. In other words, the bandwidth issues essentially result in less "real" space on the Bluray disk.

[QUOTE="The_Crucible"]

[QUOTE="Xeratule"]It depends really. If you stream compressed data, then yeah it will take a lot of CPU power. However, if you decompress the data during load time, this is a different story. A Hard Drive is really the best solution to kill both birds with one stone, but Microsoft will have to remove that limitation that they have placed on developers to do so.Wasdie

Yep, the HDD sure does solve it. Except, not all 360's have HDD's. And MS has already stated they don't want any devs creating games knowing some 360 gamer would miss out. So, they all miss out.

M$ doesn't want them to make a game require the HDD, that doesn't mean devs aren't doing it.

You're behind the times. Microsoft several months ago lifted the requirement that all games be possible to play without a HDD. The choice is now ENTIRELY up to the game developer.

[QUOTE="WuTangG"]Except its all done when the game LOADS:|Wasdie

What about games where data is streamed off the disk? It will slow down the streaming resulting in choppy framerates and pop-in textures.

I will worry about it when the awesome power of the ps3 allows it to consistantly push multi plats out better then the 360...

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

vitz3

you may fool some noobs but as a senior CS student i can clearly see you are pulling stuff out the air with no real knowledge of how a video game and hardware handles data

First of all, we shouldn't even be bringing sound and video into this discussion. Decompressing audio is trivial when it comes to performance, since it's hardly demanding. Video is just as trivial, seeing as Microsoft has it's own propreitary MPEG4 codec WMV VC1 (HD), which has the quality very close to H.264, except at 1/5th the file size. Seeing as videos don't play during regular gameplay - decompression is trivial.

You are right about the bandwidth, however that is a completely different subject, seeing as you are not suspiciously changing your premise. First you were referring to CPU-binding compression, then you suggested you were referring to compression on binaries, and now you are switching tracks and pointing at the bandwidth being the limiting factor. It just sound to me like I am arguing again Google, and not you.

With that said, I find it ironic you say I painted myself into a corner, seeing as the PS3 suffers with similiar bandwidth issues. In essense, your retort (if it actually is your retort and not google's), has worked against your original premise. Due to the early generation Bluray drive found in PS3, seek times/read times off the Bluray disk are extremely slow, resulting in developers having to place redundant data on the disk in order to statistically boost data rates. In other words, you may find that each "level" has all it's nessesary data clustered into the same area of the disk - while at the same time a portion of this data is idential to the data found in another section of the disk, for another level. In other words, the bandwidth issues essentially result in less "real" space on the Bluray disk.

rimnet00

A lot of you should do yourself a favor and go get some knowledge about Compression and Uncompression of Textures, Videos and such... really, please. I jsut read a thread from someone saying the 720p on PS3 is a higher resolution then 720p on XBOX360 ... this is what follows.

So please, try to get some serious information.

edit: btw rimned00 (if that was you name :) ) thanks for your posts!

[QUOTE="vitz3"][QUOTE="TripleXAlexXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

Oh wow. I see another lem walking with a white cane.

All Graphics processors in today's console's do decompression of textures on the GPU. The data that still relies on the CPU is still quite large. Uncompressed 5.1 sound is done on the CPU, same with geometry and video files.

You go on and on about how the GPU does decompression on the fly but you forgot that you just painted yourself into a corner.

There is a limit as to how fast the GPU can access that data from Main shared RAM. The available bandwidth of the GPU is very limited. This will result in lower quality textures, and pop-in.

When the 360 begins to deal with high-quality but highly compressed texture data we begin to see it's flaws. For example the texture data in Gears of War is the victim of this limited bandwidth. I and many others have witnessed textures pop-in and look plain ugly while the 360's GPU tries to play catch-up.

There is quite literally a physical limit as to how fast the textures can be decompressed. That little decoder can only work so fast.

First of all, we shouldn't even be bringing sound and video into this discussion. Decompressing audio is trivial when it comes to performance, since it's hardly demanding. Video is just as trivial, seeing as Microsoft has it's own propreitary MPEG4 codec WMV VC1 (HD), which has the quality very close to H.264, except at 1/5th the file size. Seeing as videos don't play during regular gameplay - decompression is trivial.

You are right about the bandwidth, however that is a completely different subject, seeing as you are not suspiciously changing your premise. First you were referring to CPU-binding compression, then you suggested you were referring to compression on binaries, and now you are switching tracks and pointing at the bandwidth being the limiting factor. It just sound to me like I am arguing again Google, and not you.

With that said, I find it ironic you say I painted myself into a corner, seeing as the PS3 suffers with similiar bandwidth issues. In essense, your retort (if it actually is your retort and not google's), has worked against your original premise. Due to the early generation Bluray drive found in PS3, seek times/read times off the Bluray disk are extremely slow, resulting in developers having to place redundant data on the disk in order to statistically boost data rates. In other words, you may find that each "level" has all it's nessesary data clustered into the same area of the disk - while at the same time a portion of this data is idential to the data found in another section of the disk, for another level. In other words, the bandwidth issues essentially result in less "real" space on the Bluray disk.

I'll put my money on you....:D

Won't uncompressed fiels actually take longer to load due to the bigger size... not to mention the slow BD drive.

I agree. You can compress 50gb down to 9 and fit it on a DVD but you have to remeber when you load your content it will take way longer to decompress then processes.Wasdie

and yet the ps3 still has astronomical load times...

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

do you have any links?

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps source
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

[QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.jlh47

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

do you have any links?

that is funny. A graphics card does not do decompression of any thing link

"With PCI, texture maps are loaded from the hard drive to system memory, processed by the CPU and then loaded into the framebuffer of the graphics card."

"

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.hiryu3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

do you have any links?

that is funny. A graphics card does not do decompression of any thing link

"With PCI, texture maps are loaded from the hard drive to system memory, processed by the CPU and then loaded into the framebuffer of the graphics card."

"