I want to say yes, but it depends on what you're actually doing as a final goal. Detecting when a path is antagonistic to most GPU approaches takes time, as do

I want to say yes, but it depends on what you're actually doing as a final goal. Detecting when a path is antagonistic to most GPU approaches takes time, as does preparing the data however it needs to be prepared on the CPU before being uploaded to the GPU. If you can just fill the whole thing on CPU in that time, you wasted your time even thinking about the GPU. If you can identify a simple case quickly, it's probably totally a good idea to get the path done on the GPU unless you need to bring the pixels back to the CPU, maybe for writing to disk. The upload and then download can be way slower than just, again, filling on CPU. If you're filling on GPU and then using on GPU (maybe as a web renderer or something), GPU is probably a big win. Except, this may not actually matter. If there is no need to re-render the path after the first time, it would be dumb to keep re-rendering on the GPU each frame / screen paint. Instead you'd want to put it into a texture. Well.... if you're only rendering once and putting into a texture, this whole conversation is maybe pointless? Then what is simple is probably the best idea. Anyway lots to 2d graphics that goes underappreciated!