13 Feb
2012
13 Feb
'12
9:10 p.m.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:50:42 -0600
"Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
Almost all less than 5 years old PC hardware has either a nVidia,
ATI or
Intel GPU, that is not necessarily powerful but definitely has enough
power to render standard controls with OpenGL.
On Sunday 12
February 2012 02:20:38 Timothy Pearson wrote:
I do not have any benchmarks handy at the moment, although this is
simply due to the length of time from those tests to the writing of
this message. The upshot was that Qt4 is significantly slower when it
comes to rendering raster graphics (as you mentioned), and also when
large numbers of widgets are displayed on-screen. If I understand
some of the Qt changes, the raster performance was improved somewhat
in the latest versions of Qt4, but I don't know if the other problems
were addressed.
As an aside, 3D graphics hardware is not only expensive, it is also
one of the most proprietary and least-understood components in a
typical computer (it also tends to burn out a lot, at least that is
my experience with anything other than an enterprise-grade nVidia
Quadro card). If nVidia and ATI experienced supply shortages (don't
laugh, remember the recent hard drive scarcity due to flooding in
Thailand) I would still need to be able to use my computers with
not-so-great backup graphics hardware, and possibly without good
OpenGL support. These are the exact reasons I stopped to the move
to Qt4 and
picked up maintinance of Qt3 (now becoming TQt3). I gave the
conversion effort my best shot (which took many, many months of
effort) and stopped once it became apparent how extensive Qt4's
limitations were (especially in drawing operations and native X11
window handling) and also how buggy Qt4
really is.
May I ask for the benchmarking results? I am seriously interested
here as I
think that I can provide you some valuable help here. My fear is
that you had
an incorrect benchmark (the experts call that phoronixing) and that
your decision is because of that on false grounds.
Especially important is to consider that graphics cards, drivers,
what you render (widgets vs scenes), which Qt graphicssystem you
use seriously influences the result. E.g. rendering widgets with
raster might be a bad idea.
Cheers
Martin
More practically, even slightly sluggish performance is quite
noticeable to power users. Many applications, upon converting from
Qt3 to Qt4, appeared to slow down noticeably.
Even with a common Qt-internal style
such as CDE or Win9x ?
These are just my $0.02 and experiences in working with Qt 4.7. I am
open to looking at Qt4 again once Trolltech fixes the raster graphics
problem for good.
It will be "fixed" with Qt5, which will have OpenGL ES
2.0 as the only
graphics system. It had better work well with llvmpipe...
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read
list messages on the web archive:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to
top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting