> Well, it actually depends on a particular chip but ok, let's say that they ALSO have 2D acceleration.
Nope. Almost all of the embedded chips and most of desktop GPUs don't have any 2D XRender acceleration. At most, they have accelerated compositing.
> Radeon is not the best example. Simple CPU-based software 2D rendering there is often faster than doing that through driver/hardware.
Yup. Especially since X server is single-threaded and complicated XRender scenes can easily swamp it.
> Ehm. Glamour is an option. And it's not the best option.
For new Radeons - it's the only one. They simply don't have any 2D acceleration.
> XRender, as a protocol, has great support for gradients, line drawing and text rendering.
No it doesn't.
> Without XRender you have to implement hardware-specific hacks in EVERY PROGRAM in the world, or actually that would be every toolkit. That's what Wayland wants you to do. Otherwise your program may be even slower than using a software rendering.
And with XRender you have to pray and make burnt offerings to videocard gods to make sure that your application even runs.
Applications can use software rendering which is almost always faster than XRender, especially with multi-threaded rasterizers. And in future - just stick to EGL or OpenGL3 - they provide guaranteed hardware acceleration.