Slashdot Mirror
The Care and Feeding of the Android GPU
bonch writes "Charles Ying argues that Android's UX architecture has serious technical issues because, unlike the iPhone and Windows 7, Android composites the interface in software to retain compatibility with lower-class devices. Additionally, Android runs Java bytecode during animation, and garbage collection blocks the drawing system. Google engineers dismiss the desire for hardware-accelerated compositing and cite more powerful hardware and an avoidance of temporary objects as a solution to the collection pauses, but Ying argues that will just lead to [a lower] average battery life compared to devices like the iPhone."
There is this new thing called "conditional compilation" which allows one to include code that both optimizes for certain hardware and contains generic code that could work on all devices. I hear it's the new rage of how you make code work on multiple hardware and software platforms.
I don't know enough about the Android graphics API, but if it's designed properly it should be possible for the client to always call the same function and the underlying implementation to select the code path most optimized for the platform. Mac OS X has one CoreGraphics API, and it either composites on the GPU or on the CPU depending on what's available. I don't see why Amdroiid can't do the same.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
You mean it's like a real, honest to goodness, computer operating system? Oh no! The horror! Guess you should stop making software for Windows, Linux, and OSX then, since the hardware can provided different capabilities for systems using the same operating system!
Somebody should really invent a programming interface for graphics. You could use hardware or software rendering for the same code, or generally a mixture of both, depending on the capabilities. It could be called "open graphics library" or something.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
That depends on the optimization and how that chipset actually handles throwing stuff on the screen. 'Optimize' may not just mean "format the data this certain way and it'll fly through the processors more quickly", it could also mean "use more polygons and lower-res textures because the chipset is better at moving verts around than filling texels". It doesn't matter that it's not low-level if it affects how the whole engine works.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Add to that, you really don't need to optimise the code that you use for compositing on the GPU. A low-end mobile GPU can render something on the order of three million textured triangles per second. A typical mobile UI has a few dozen UI elements, with one texture and two triangles (one square) each. Even really crappy code is not going to come close to taxing the GPU. That's why we do compositing on the GPU - because it can run in its lowest-clocked mode and still provide fast performance, which lets you use the CPU for something else (or down-clock it too and save battery life).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
massively different user experience on different devices
consider: different user experience on massively different devices
Why should it be otherwise? Should a quad-core i7 SLI provide exactly the same 'user experience' as an Atom netbook? Obviously not. It is not reasonable to expect the same results from increasingly diverse hardware. Android will be found on the lowest end freebee 'smart' phone China can make, while also appearing on the most outrageous hardware that doesn't present an immediate fire hazard. Where, exactly, was it written that the limits of one must apply to the other?
This problem has been solved over and over again. An architecture must exist that provides fall-back software implementations of hardware accelerated functions. When some app performs poorly due to inadequate hardware the user may find some other preoccupation or upgrade to a sufficient device.
What is the problem? At the moment it appears to be Google's obstinacy. This is a losing battle for them; they're creating a differentiating point among the manufacturers because the manufacturers can alter Android, including accelerating stuff with hardware. Marketing will then make claims about how xyz's Android is better than the other Androids because of xyz's special sauce (that may or may not port easily to some other collection of chips.) If the manufacturers don't the users will.
Lets hope Google wises up and deals with the issue properly.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old