hiryu at audioseek.net
Fri Feb 25 15:13:13 PST 2005
Thank you for the info.
Would it be helpful to anyone if I provided some benchmarks of render vs
imlib2 without hardware render acceleration?
I would also love to help fix the situation. I am solid with C, and I
know a bit of x86 assembly. However, I'm lacking an understanding of low
level graphics. How could I go learning about that topic?
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 09:54 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Cameron wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm sure many people have seen imlib2 vs xrender benchmarks before,
> > however, I still think these deserve a look. I do have render
> > acceleration enabled for my card. My card is also quite high end.
> > http://audioseek.net/~hiryu/render.html
> > Anyway, hope this is helpful.
> Note that in by far the most common operation (non-scaled OVER)
> RENDER came out ahead by a large margin. For the scaled blends
> note that that:
> - Virtually all drivers don't yet accelerate scaled RENDER blends.
> (I think that's *all* drivers from the xorg tree)
> - There's no fast-pathing of scaled RENDER blends in software at
> all. It's all slow path.
> So the results are absolutely not suprising. Nobody is going to
> object if you help fix that situation.
> Really, fast routines to implement one operation or another are
> a very well defined problem. The hard thing is getting the framework
> in place so that we have the right client/server interface (RENDER),
> and so that the software code lives in only one place, whether
> it's used by the client or the server. (libpixman)
> I think that's coming together now.
More information about the xorg