I am lifting an old thread here, since there is a bit of data that may be related.
I have been testing Quartz surface vs. image surface performance - on an Intel Mac. The results are somewhat surprising to me. A certain image that's a pretty good mix of polygons, lines, icons (copied from another surface) and text gets the following drawing times (seconds): Pixman with SSE - 0.122 Pixman, no SSE or MMX: 0.140 Quartz (using fonts through Freetype backend): 0.145 Quartz (using fonts through Quartz font backend): 0.165 A few conclusions: - Pixman is quite a bit faster than Quartz when used by cairo. Assuming this extrapolates to iOS/arm - having a proper optimized Pixman build on iOS is quite crucial. - Even unoptimized, it is still somewhat preferable to use pixman over Quartz - Quartz is slower with its own fonts - this one I just don't get As an aside, even if I use exactly the same fonts (selected by name in Quartz vs. loaded as file in Freetype), they render differently in both image and quartz surface, with Freetype fonts quite a bit "crisper". All of the above based on cairo 1.9.8. --cu Andrea Canciani wrote: > Cairo should already provide the needed support for iOS in the > Quartz backend. If that is the main backend used by the application, > Pixman should already be quite usable without NEON optimization, > as it will only be used for fallbacks. Of course it would be nice to get > NEON fast paths, if they can actually be used on that architecture. > > _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman