Around 10 o'clock on Aug 15, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> Point was that if RENDER is not hardware-accelerated, there is no reason to > use it, instead of libart. There are a couple of significant advantages to using even a software implementation of Render, the first is that you can get reasonable performance for applications over a network. The second is that when compositing images with window contents, placing the compositing software right next to the frame buffer means that only the pixels which are translucent in the source image need be read from the frame buffer. As the performance of software rendering is essentially limited by the speed of reading from the frame buffer, this optimization can actually make things dramatically faster. So, using Render should be no slower than using libart, and will be faster in networked environments, when using images that contain few translucent pixels and when we get X servers with hardware acceleration for the extension. The later is largely a matter of architecture; a new XAA layer is being designed which will provide some more help for writing Render acceleration. Of course, you could also look at the Matrox code and implement similar acceleration for whatever video card you like; that will make Render a lot faster, and doing some of the common cases isn't really that much work. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ Render mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/render
