There is more machinery internally than what the user can see. Even "low level" APIs hide quite a lot of the internal complexity.

> Also AFAIK something like a texture sampling operation is indeed a 'fancy instruction'(?)

Yes, and no. The "I want to sample this texture" part looks like a fancy instruction to the shader processor. But there is a fair amount of setup that needs to be done before and after, and that is the responsibility of the device driver. Stuff like: where is the data, how is it arranged in memory, how it is to be sampled, etc.

As you point out, the texture units are coprocessors inside the coprocessor that is the GPU itself. It is turtles all the way down. Think of a GPU as a whole network of processors inside a chip, some of which are hidden from the application programmer.

> I bet this type of GPU/CPU handshaking work could also be baked into the hardware (similar to CPU mirocode) and exposed via a standardized memory mapped IO interface (or whatever the current mechanism is for letting the CPU control the GPU)

Attempts have been made. Last time I checked, they had not been very successful, but I have not kept up with the latest developments after retirement.

The way this normally works is that there is a circular command buffer where the CPU inserts commands and the GPU consumes them. It works; there is nothing wrong with it. It is the obvious way to handle asynchronous coprocessors.

> E.g. a CPU also implements similar protocols to talk to the rest of the computer system (e.g. memory and other CPUs), but this is mainly implemented as "hardware protocols" - drivers "just" offer more flexibility for hardware vendors because they can delegate the standardization into software.

I suspect you underestimate the amount of setup that is necessary to drive a GPU. And the amount of asynchronous resource management involved.

Let me put it this other way: the people doing this for a living for decades know what they are doing. There have been attempts to try to make GPUs that behave more like CPUs in terms of how they are driven, and they have not been very successful so far, to my knowledge. AMD acquired ATI back in 2006, so it is not like there hasn't been enough time for the concept to cook in the oven. See also Intel's Larrabee.