Could somebody test this on Vista? I need to know whether it takes 0% cpu in TaskManager and/or Sysinternals-ProcessExplorer.
It's simple drawing, where on a huge 1200x900 DIB I only update a small area, and then BitBlt the whole 1200x900 area onscreen. This is done 50-60 times/second.
On Win2k and XP every videocard must accelerate this, making the app take 0% cpu, if your screen-depth is 32bpp.
I've read that on Vista, though, GDI is no longer accelerated.
Also, does anyone here have only 24bpp screen-mode? (I hope that only very old cards work in that mode).
Feedback from Win2k/XP users is also welcome.
on vista, 1440*900*32 screen
0% cpu... but it's quite normal when you see what's done :wink
Great news then!
I could put a shitload of BitBlt-based animations, then do alphablending/custom-blending on several small areas, and since Vista seems to support hardware acceleration, then it'll still take 0% cpu :P
1) 1600 * 1200 * 32 resolution on Vista. 0%.
2) duel screens extended with 1280 * 1024 * 32 on both with XP SP2. 0%.
I'm curious, how did you "force" this to be accelerated? I created a small application and could never seem to get an accelerated mode.
32bpp DIB, XRGB.
The sdEnd() contains one BitBlt(hdcWindow,...,hdcMyBigDIB,..).
Though this operation is hardware-accelerated, since my DIB is in SysRAM, the GPU wastes SysRAM memory bandwidth. Yet, the alternative is to do a shitload of clipping, dirty rectangles, send it with BitBlt in small rectangles, and on each small rectangle Windows checks how/whether to clip it to the client-area region, and then there's the BitBlt-hardware-interface-calling overhead... It really really gets ugly under some ShaderModel2 cards when there are 600 BitBlts at 50Hz.
Hai ultrano, its a nice lib. But where is the dll?
Also, can I use it? Its 0 percent on my 1.7 Ghz XP system.
There's no .dll it's all in that .lib and .inc
I've uploaded sDraw on this forum with full docs and examples, in a thread named "sDraw" -search it.