Hardware rendered vs software rendered??? :/
It's all just software. The only thing that matters is how fast it is.
It's all just software. The only thing that matters is how fast it is.
My point is, software is rendering the graphics. Either it's software running on one chip, or it's software on another chip. That's irrelevant. What matters, is how fast the graphics are rendered.
What's interesting is not only how fast the graphics are rendered, but the graphics performance compared to power usage. If the software stack doesn't give you a big performance / watt advantage when using a GPU, that's the fault of the software stack and will make that stack perform worse compared to one that does make use of hardware acceleration.
Software rendering means that it's handled detail by detail by software on a general-purpose computation device.
Hardware rendering means that the software instead initiates complex actions on swaths of the screen at a time by triggering highly-specialized hardware.
One method is orders of magnitude faster than the other, but limited in scope. It's a fool's errand to try to conflate them.
A crappy 'hardware' accelerated GPU can be slower than a 'software' framebuffer write.
My point was that saying "It's hardware accelerated" is meaningless marketing speak.
You're being shafted by downvoters who don't really know what they're talking about.
No, its not irrelevant. The terms have meaning, regarding the separation. And while it may technically be a misnomer, feigning ignorance to the misnomer to try and point out the misnomer to people who already know about it is not only arguing semantics, but doing so in least constructive way possible.
To address your other post that its all marketing speak, well no, not really. In discussions, what gets called hardware or software conveys meaningful information, but it is highly context sensitive to the bits being discussed at the time, because technically all computing is some combination of hardware and software.