On 05/18/2012 09:07 AM, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote: > Often it's hard to beat the performance of the main CPU(s for most people > these days) filling in a polygon directly, rather than handing it off to a > GPU.
Guess this is the reason behind the decision why in Qt 4.8 raster has become the default graphics system on X11 - what more or less means turning hardware acceleration off ( maybe it's worth to mention that QPainter is not synonym for software renderer - QPainter/X11 and QPainter/OpenGL are usually hardware accelerated ). While I can't confirm that the CPU does things faster for the most relevant use cases I have in the Qwt library ( + the result is terrible for remote X11 or NX ), I can imagine that there are other use cases where this is true. F.e. on my box it is way faster to fill a QImage with a gradient + converting it expensively to a QPixmap, than to fill the QPixmap with the X11 paint engine. Don't know why - but, maybe this is an example where a scene graph could do things better ? But before you read me wrong: I'm absolutely not against having a new and better graphic system - all I wanted to say is to be careful with performance statistics. Uwe _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development