> Anyway, many people think of OpenGL as just 3D, but it is extremely > competent for 2D (given a good driver).
That's where your argument falls down. I wouldn't be surprised if even a crappy OpenGL implementation could beat plain GDI. However I'd guess most OpenGL drivers are optimised for common 3D operations. OpenGL provides a very wide range of functionality, however if you go outside the commonly used (and hence optimized) feature set performance is likely to be fairly poor when compared if optimized routines. > standard Windows GDI and 145 ms for the OpenGL 2D-canvas (and its just a > standard business computer with no fancy graphic card at all). If GDI was writing directly to video memory and OpenGL was writing to a buffer in system memory that would explain the large difference. I'm not saying OpenGL is necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly not (yet) what I'd consider good solution. Especially considering that 90% of modern graphics cards don't have any open source OpenGL capable drivers. Paul _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
