←back to thread

518 points LorenDB | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
trollbridge ◴[] No.46173936[source]
Not to disrespect this, but it used to be entirely normal to have a GUI environment on a machine with 2MB of RAM and a 40MB disk.

Or 128K of ram and 400 kb disk for that matter.

replies(10): >>46173975 #>>46174032 #>>46174138 #>>46174272 #>>46174291 #>>46174522 #>>46174810 #>>46174831 #>>46179105 #>>46179554 #
maccard ◴[] No.46174032[source]
A single 1920x1080 framebuffer (which is a low resolution monitor in 2025 IMO) is 2MB. Add any compositing into the mix for multi window displays and it literally doesn’t fit in memory.
replies(8): >>46174159 #>>46174187 #>>46174618 #>>46174766 #>>46176381 #>>46178650 #>>46179683 #>>46182290 #
echoangle ◴[] No.46174159[source]
Do you really need the framebuffer in RAM? Wouldn't that be entirely in the GPU RAM?
replies(6): >>46174217 #>>46174228 #>>46174232 #>>46174790 #>>46174992 #>>46175002 #
jerrythegerbil ◴[] No.46174232[source]
To put it in GPU RAM, you need GPU drivers.

For example, NVIDIA GPU drivers are typically around 800M-1.5G.

That math actually goes wildly in the opposite direction for an optimization argument.

replies(3): >>46174310 #>>46174452 #>>46175997 #
Rohansi ◴[] No.46174310[source]
> NVIDIA GPU drivers are typically around 800M-1.5G.

They also pack in a lot of game-specific optimizations for whatever reason. Could likely be a lot smaller without those.

replies(1): >>46174400 #
1. monocasa ◴[] No.46174400[source]
Even the open source drivers without those hacks are massive. Each type of card has its own almost 100MB of firmware that runs on the card on Nvidia.
replies(1): >>46174904 #
2. jsheard ◴[] No.46174904[source]
That's 100MB of RISC-V code, believe it or not, despite Nvidias ARM fixation.