We should have three layers of falling back: OpenGL-on-Vulcan first, pure OpenGL next, Cairo software rendering last.
Moving some of the heavy duty graphics rendering off the CPU can help performances IMO. > On Nov 28, 2019, at 7:50 AM, James Carthew <[email protected]> wrote: > > If Apple is forcing the use of Metal, wouldn't it make sense to use Vulkan > rather than OpenGL? There's already working happening to make OpenGL a layer > built on top of Vulkan e.g Zink: > https://www.collabora.com/news-and-blog/blog/2018/10/31/introducing-zink-opengl-implementation-vulkan/ > > <https://www.collabora.com/news-and-blog/blog/2018/10/31/introducing-zink-opengl-implementation-vulkan/> > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 09:57, Andreas Fink <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On 27 Nov 2019, at 19:02, Max Chan <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> I wonder how Apple implemented their version though… I do have an >> observation: if I force VESA graphics on my Hackintosh (this requires >> special boot flags, so it is easier to do on Hackintosh than a real Mac,) >> the OS interfaces are rendered very slowly. However if I allow accelerated >> graphics (default behavior,) it operates smoothly but from time to time the >> GPU fan would spin up even though there is no GPU-intensive tasks. >> >> I think Apple went down the exclusive OpenGL/Metal route. That is, either >> get accelerated graphics working at a kernel level, or tolerate slow >> CoreGraphics. > > > Given OSX 10.15 and above does require metal support graphics hardware, (a > old MacPro (the big PC style towers, not the round ugly thing) could not be > upgraded to 10.15 unless it had a metal capable video card, would confirm > that. > >
