On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Hk kng<hk.kng(a)web.de> wrote:
New test results were added at
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SVG_benchmarks
This looks even better than my first attempt. Nonetheless, it is clear
that batikd is not ready to use but needs to be worked on.
I'm not sure where the notion came up that median performance was a
useful criteria for selecting a rendering engine.
I'd expect that the criteria would be something like this:
0. security comfort (i.e. ability to deny local file access, strength
against overflow exploits)
1. worst case memory usage vs average
2. worst case cpu consumption vs average
3. Least surprising rendered output
4. average cpu consumption
Batik probably wins on 0, Inkscape wins on 3 (being bug compatible
with something the user can operate at home is arguably superior to
being correct), rsvg wins on 1,2,4 (and maybe daemonized batik is
getting close on 4).
Sometimes the CPU comparisons can be a bit hard... a rendering engine
which doesn't support SVG filters (i.e. old rsvg) will likely be
faster, but it will be producing unexpected output.