> why a supposedly-3D-optimized GPU for a 2D task […] 3D-adapted graphics facility is what you shall use. Modern GPUs & so-called 3D APIs don’t really do all t

> why a supposedly-3D-optimized GPU for a 2D task […] 3D-adapted graphics facility is what you shall use. Modern GPUs & so-called 3D APIs don’t really do all that much that is 3D specific. @greggman likes to talk about WebGL as a fundamentally 2D API https://webglfundamentals.org/webgl/lessons/webgl-2d-vs-3d-library.html https://webglfundamentals.org/webgl/lessons/webgl-2d-vs-3d-l... The bulk of the 3D work is still 2D, filling all the pixels, rasterizing 2D triangles after they’ve been transformed, projected to 2D, and clipped. Shaders might have lots of 3D math, but that’s really just pure math and no different from 2D math as far as the GPU is concerned. > Do people know how to do analytic or even just AGG-quality 2D rasterization on a GPU? Or anything but simple oversampling. Yes, I think so - if you mean quads & triangles. The problem, of course, is analytic filtering (even 2D) usually isn’t worth the cost, and that oversampling is cheap and effective and high enough quality for most tasks. (Still, adaptive oversampling and things like DLSS are popular ways to reduce the costs of oversampling.) The path rendering people think carefully about 2d path rendering though: https://hhoppe.com/ravg.pdf https://hhoppe.com/ravg.pdf https://developer.nvidia.com/gpu-accelerated-path-rendering https://developer.nvidia.com/gpu-accelerated-path-rendering And don’t forget mipmapped texture sampling, even in 2D, is better than oversampled. A very common shader trick for 2d antialiasing that’s better than oversampling (not analytic, but sometimes damn close) is to use the pixel derivatives to compute the edges of a mask that blends from opaque to transparent in ~1-pixel. https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4ssSRl https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4ssSRl