Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 14:38 UTC, submitted by Anonymous Reader
Benchmarks "A lot of people has been asking me about some performance comparison for the vector graphics framework we have. Rendering polygons, especially when we're dealing with stroke, tends to be the most expensive rendering operation performed in vector graphics. I constructed a little test, which tests raw polygon rendering power of Qt and Cairo. For the test I used the latest Qt main branch, and the master branch from Cairo's Git repository."
E-mail Print r 13   68 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 174294
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Facts
by miro on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:07 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

Quote: "The reason for Cairo with Glitz backend yielding the same results as Cairo with XRender backend is that polygon rendering in both of those goes through the same client-side steps all the way until the final blit and it's not the blit but the tessellation and rasterization that are the bottlenecks..."
So it seems to me that the API is not *that* polished
if operations cannot be pushed to hardware...

Those of you saying cairo is to new and not polished, how comes that it is already used by gnome/firefox, while Qt version is still under development?

And for the quality concerns see the article cairo *fails* the last test (which is granted a rather abstract example).

Let me say credit where credit is due! Good work trolls:)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Facts
by kleb on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:52 in reply to "Facts"
kleb Member since:
2006-09-17

Those of you saying cairo is to new and not polished, how comes that it is already used by gnome/firefox, while Qt version is still under development?

Uhm... obviously Qt is already in use as well, in the popular KDE desktop environment. They already have a 2D vector graphics engine in place, but this engine is undergoing further development for the upcoming Qt 4.

The point is, Qt displays these amazing results because it's coming out of a performance optimisation phase that Cairo is only just entering at the moment. Well, perhaps it's not exactly comparable. But Cairo has seen very little dedicated performance tuning so far, but this is changing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Facts
by someone on Tue 24th Oct 2006 01:59 in reply to "Facts"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Those of you saying cairo is to new and not polished, how comes that it is already used by gnome/firefox, while Qt version is still under development?

Arthur, the new 2D engine for Qt (comparable to Cairo), was first released more than a year ago with the initial release of Qt 4. Cairo 1 was released a few months later.

Also, at this point, Firefox only uses Cairo for its SVG support, which is rarely used due to the scant amount of SVG content on the Internet.

Reply Parent Score: 2