[jacobp100]

> I am curious if the equation of CPU-determined graphics being faster than being done on the GPU has changed in the last decade

If you look at Blend2D (a CPU rasterizer), they seem to outperform every other rasterizer including GPU-based ones - according to their own benchmarks at least

[miguel_martin]

Blaze outperforms Blend2D - by the same author as the article: https://gasiulis.name/parallel-rasterization-on-cpu/ - but to be fair, Blend2D is really fast.

[Asm2D]

You need to rerun the benchmarks if you want fresh numbers. The post was written when Blend2D didn't have JIT for AArch64, which penalized it a bit. Also on X86_64 the numbers are really good for Blend2D, which beats Blaze in some tests. So it's not black&white.

And please keep in mind that Blend2D is not really in development anymore - it has no funding so the project is basically done.

[coffeeaddict1]

> And please keep in mind that Blend2D is not really in development anymore - it has no funding so the project is basically done.

That's such a shame. Thanks a lot for Blend2D! I wish companies were less greedy and would fund amazing projects like yours. Unfortunately, I do think that everyone is a bit obsessed with GPUs nowadays. For 2D rendering the CPU is great, especially if you want predictable results and avoid having to deal with the countless driver bugs that plague every GPU vendor.

[miguel_martin]

That is fair - sorry for spreading mis-information! That's unfortunate to hear about Blend2D.

[Asm2D]

Blend2D doesn't benchmark against GPU renderers - the benchmarking page compares CPU renderers. I have seen comparisons in the past, but it's pretty difficult to do a good CPU vs GPU benchmarking.