• PotatoesFall
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Yeah the explanation can’t be true. It would take a single thread like 0 milliseconds to render the background image. That must be a shitpost.

    That being said, I can imagine the first part being true due to some random windows fuckery

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Also the potential number of threads would be in the millions if you used the entire color pallette on your background (limited by your display resolution). Even if you aren’t approaching that, surely most backgrounds have color values in at least the tens of thousands even with color compression. That just moves the bottleneck to your number of cores. Even the thread switching alone would have astronomically more overhead than just having one thread render the whole background.