Originally Posted by Linuxhippy
1.) GTK creates short-living pixmaps wich are never moved to VRAM - this SLOWS DOWN GTK BY 25% overall. GTK devs have reasons why they do so (although I think it has some major drawbacks), but it seems nvidia drivers cope really bad with this case.
I don't see a reason to do all rendering by the CPU, just because one frequently used operation is not accalerated (but could be) in hardware - and thats why GPUs and vram exist, to do rendering _there_.
IMHO GPUs and VRAM exist to do heavy things there. By heavy things i mean
3D, and posible some video decoding aceleration. but thats my oppinion.
2.) No one says subpixel-AA has to be accalerated, but it should be "fast enough".
With fast enough I mean that I can work without noticing ugly slowness with "normal" applications, who cares about benchmarks.
if it is fast enough with some apps, and some others have problems, maybe it's the app.
3.) Well then I whish you a lot of fun with XFCE. Keep in mind you're GPU practically does nothing more than displaying the stuff calculated by you CPU *lol
Its a bit like changing your car just because with the tires you put onto it you can't driver more than 50km/h.
ok. but thats my understanding of 2D. the CPU does the rendering stuff, the GFX card only displays it on the monitor.
ok, my gpu is sitting lazy around. but, with OpenOffice, i can even use
cool'n'quiet to downclock my cpu and i notice no speed impact, cause things like OOo can't really drive a modern cpu to anything near 100%.
so i see really no use in trying to offload more work to the GPU in such situations, considering the major drawbacks: bus usage, difficult software, ...
you might say that if you compile something in the background, while using
OOo will slower as necessary, cause the gpu can offload OOo gfx stuff, and
you got more cpu ressources for compiling, but to be honest, such situations
do not occur too often.