Not everybody is always aware of the potential future consequences of their actions. I'm sure Ernie Ball didn't realise what they were getting into when they chose to use Microsoft software. They thought they just bought some software, but didn't realise that they were losing quite a bit of freedom. When confronted with that reality, they promptly got rid of the software and regained their freedom.
Yet they do admit they're still using some proprietary software, and that the decision in the beginning to go with Microsoft, the decision to move to Linux, the decision to continue using some proprietary stuff was their own decision. No one else decided that for them, they made the decision themselves, and that's the whole point of what I have been saying all along: you are not granting freedom, you are taking freedom away if you don't allow people to make their own decisions.
I'm one of those who doesn't understand. Would you please explain?
RMS drives freedom of source-code: in his opinion all code should be GPLed so that you cannot decide _not_ to release your own modifications to it if you share the end-result with other people, ie. you're obligated to continue keeping the source-code free whether or not you want to. If the freedom was end-user - oriented then you'd be free to decide all for yourself what to do with the source-code, like e.g. with BSD-license. Two entirely different approaches to freedom, and you cannot have both.
I really don't see that the fact that the program is free does anything except guarantee my freedom as a user.
Perhaps you are saying that refusing to use proprietary software reduces the amount of choice I have?
Pray tell, what consumer-oriented OS is there that would protect against this kind of stuff? OSX doesn't, Haiku doesn't, BSD doesn't, Linux doesn't... Hell, how would the OS even do that without seriously limiting users' ability to use their own computers?
What I see people arguing for is to give up some short term freedom to avoid losing much more freedom in the long term.
And that is exactly what I do not agree with. If freedom must be pushed on people even against their will then it was never freedom even in the first place.
Also, worth noting is the fact that RMS drives for freedom of code, not freedom of users; the two are mutually exclusive, and this is exactly what so many advocates either choose to deliberately ignore or just simply do not understand.
Perhaps, if gamers back then had decided that they were only going to play Free games, that would have become the dominant paradigm, and these excesses wouldn't have occurred, or at least would have been exceptions rather than the rule. We'll never know, but I do think that sometimes giving up a little immediate freedom can help in the long term.
I doubt that. The one, primary driving force behind DRM is greed and the one, primary force enabling it is technological advances, neither of which we can change no matter how many freedoms we decide to forfeit. Besides, if it was that easy then we should instead support Steam/Valve: Steam's DRM is really very, very benign and user-friendly compared to those employed by other companies and as such it is actually a step in the right direction. Supporting a lesser form of DRM also doesn't stop one from supporting primarily non-DRM-encumbered solutions.
This is more-or-less what I was thinking: it's perfectly fine and reasonable to push for 'Free' as long as it doesn't take anything away from you, but if you lose something -- access to software you've paid for, the ability to do things you want to do, etc. -- then what's the point? Many F/OSS - supporters hold the idea that 'freedom' must be pushed on to people, even if it means losing actual freedoms! That is inherently illogical.
Alas, the two-component defence apparently is: the blue crystals by themselves are already toxic, but when they mix with another component the mixture becomes even more lethal.
You kids had it easy! Back in my day we scrawled our programs on the cave walls and had to relocate ourselves fully if we ran out of storage space. Not to mention that back then bugs actually meant bugs the size of your head!
And yet, there are so many other scenarios where such toys would end up in kids mouths despite their parents being perfectly good parents. Bad preschools. Older siblings. Kids climbing up on Daddy's computer desk while Daddy's in the toilet. These things happen, and in the case of these toys, the effect is much worse than it would seem due to the strong magnetics.
All the things you said apply to almost anything! Kids can end up with all kinds of things they shouldn't and even die, yet those products aren't banned. Hell, you'd have to ban even basic ball-pens, then, as there are several cases of severe trauma, lost eyes and death associated even with those. So why are Buckyballs or similar stuff any different? All I see is a witch-hunt by people who do not care to actually think for a few more minutes before crying foul.
GW2 is for kids who think X-box 360 graphics are cutting edge.
At 30 years of age I'm hardly a kid, plus I have never owned an Xbox of any kind nor do I consider it worth ever owning, either. I just don't understand what that has to do with GW2.
You don't pick up quests anymore by going to spot X, you go to spot X and wait a few minutes for the event to start. Woot!
You've quite clearly misunderstood more-or-less everything, it is nothing like what you describe. With a comment like that you've just shot down all your credibility with one sentence. Well done.
Despite its flaws, Guild Wars 2 is the best MMO I've ever played.
I heartily agree. It is not perfect, but well, it is impossible to create perfect so that's kind of a moot point. For the price of the game you still get hundreds of hours worth of content and stuff to do and you're not even playing a monthly fee, so there is no pressure to "get your money's worth," so to speak; you just take your time and play as much or as little as you feel like over any period of time.
Now, the thing with Guild Wars 2 is that since there is no usual carrot-on-a-stick to it as is on WoW, TERA et.al. it doesn't suit everyone. Some people like the treadmill - style gameplay and the feeling of progression -- no matter how artificial it is -- and as such I try not to recommed Guild Wars 2 to these people, they'll just get disappointed and then complain loudly how bad Guild Wars 2 is, giving the game undeserved negative impression. I only recommend Guild Wars 2 to people I believe might enjoy it. Unfortunately, there ain't many such people in my circles of people I know meaning that I'll be quite lonely on release:/
No, they're pissed because a toy that was never meant for children is being given to children by stupid parents and as such they cause the toy to be banned. It's like giving a power-drill to a child and then crying foul when the kid gets hurt: "oh, just get a clue and find something else, parents don't need to pay more attention and I'll just continue shoving fingers in my ears while yelling lalalalalala..."
the less time the machine spends active the more time it can spend in idle which quite obviously results in less heat and power consumption.
The caveat is that power consumption must not increase during the shorter period of operation for this to be true.
Yes, I could have been anally retentive and said "if the power consumption of the combined devices over the timeframe of the task was smaller than the power consumption of both devices combined over the timeframe of the same task, but with only one of the devices actively performing the task" but.... that wouldn't have added anything to the discussion.
But your CPU will only use less power and produce less heat, because instead of running the GPU in low power mode to move a few pixels around, it will now run in fully accelerated mode.
I guess you've never used a PC where you could actually hear the fans speed up when 3D acceleration becomes active. Otherwise you'd realize they speed up because more heat needs to be moved away, and that heat is the result of using more power.
You're comparing the rendering of a visually complex computer game with complex geometric shapes, hundreds of megabytes of textures, antialiasing, pixel and vertex shaders and so on to.... rendering lines, triangles, rectangles and fonts. Think about that a little bit more.
Now, finished thinking yet? Well, do you use Windows 7? Is your GPU fan running at max speed at all times? No? Then quite obviously what you're describing is not happening and will not happen; Aero is already using GPU - acceleration, Firefox and Internet Explorer use Direct2D and DirectWrite for GPU - acceleration, Flash-player uses GPU - acceleration, and yet even you mention that the fan only speeds up when a more demanding task is thrown at it. The tasks discussed here are definitely not demanding and could already be handled by GPUs a decade ago.
Some of you sure are acting obtuse here. Rendering text a few milliseconds faster isn't going to translate into finishing your work faster.
And? No one even claimed that, so you're again complaining about something that hasn't even been an issue in the first place. You just keep jumping all over the place with your arguments.
No, I'm not complaining about performance improvements, dullards, I am complaining about the rest of it
Look at your first post here: you can quite clearly see yourself saying that that isn't where hardware acceleration is important, and when asked where it is then you completely avoid answering the question. You also complain about not caring if the text renders in 100ms vs. 300ms, which quite clearly is a complaint about not caring about performance-improvements. And here you are, saying you're not actually complaining about the things you were complaining. If you don't like the UI-changes to Windows 8 then you should just learn to say that. Even better if you were actually capable of forming coherent posts where you explain your reasons for not liking it, then someone might actually care.
I think the power saving arguments are tripe as well. I believe the opposite will occur.
Feel free to live in your deluded imagination. If, however, you feel adventurous and actually wish to verify your claim you can simply install a Linux-distro and accelerated drivers for X, charge battery to 100% and use the computer until the battery goes empty, then re-charge and disable Xv, XRender and EXA acceleration and see how long it lasts. You'll very quickly realize how much of a difference accelerating things on a GPU does.
Enjoy the regressions in usability and stay impressed by trivial things.
Rather unimpressive attempt at an ad-hominem attack.
I don't understand. From what I can see the "selling point" of Windows 8 is metro, is touch screen, is the new UI. You, and many others, I'm sure, will be instantly disabling these features?
There isn't really much to disable, I'll just use the traditional desktop with one or another Start-menu replacement, that's all.
Guess what, I don't blame your for this, I just wonder why you don't choose an operating system to fit your needs, whether it's sticking with Windows 7 or moving elsewhere. Is it a good idea to "upgrade" and then spend time and effort working around those upgrades to have what you had before?
I want the performance-improvements and increased battery-life offered by Windows 8, that's more-or-less the whole reason for me to upgrade, though being able to better support family and friends with Windows 8 is a good side-effect. Since I bought a new laptop at the beginning of June I am eligible for the discounted price of Windows 8 Pro, I'll have already saved that money just by skipping one Subway-meal and as such the price is not really a deterrent. I will be sticking with Windows 7 on my desktop, though, as it is not eligible for this discount.
As for "moving elsewhere": that is unfortunately not a suitable solution for my use-cases.
So hardware acceleration of image rendering will speed up reading and unpacking files.... amazing I thought it would just speed up the display of graphics...?
Uh, the article specifically does indeed mention speeding up compression and decompression of GIF, JPEG and PNG, so yes, generating the thumbnails or reading the thumbnails for display will be faster.
Right, so when you have wobbly windows under compiz, it totally rendered as usual. SURE! Especially with blur and other 3d effects. All in pseudo 3d, just usual 2d stuff.
Compiz handles rendering the whole window AFTER the window's contents has already been rendered by other subsystems. Compiz has nothing to do with the rendering of the elements inside the window itself, like e.g. in GTK+ - applications GTK+ handles the rendering of the contents. The article in question here, however, talks about rendering those contents and it has nothing to do with compositing, ergo your comparison with compositing managers is pointless.
Because the two cater to entirely different kinds of workloads, the CPU is good for general computing tasks whereas GPU excels at highly-parallel tasks with a pre-defined output. Why do you think GPU-acceleration was even invented in the first place?
Basically through into it big data or small data - if the size is not hardcoded it will do the same amount of work.
..... I really would like to know where you have gotten such an absurd idea.
Aye, seems it's that way now. Still, it's better than having to use the fullscreen menu, and I'm fairly certain someone will eventually actually do a proper Start-menu replacement. (Of course it'd be best all around if there was no need for such a replacement in the first place, but alas....)
Your mobile device is going to have graphics capabilities that will matter for this?
Try to find a SINGLE modern GPU that cannot e.g. accelerate Direct2D or DirectWrite. Those have been around for atleast a decade now. So the answer to your question is quite obviously "yes." The functionality that relies on DX11.1 won't be accelerated for now, but it won't take long before the next-generation Intel and AMD - processors will ship with DX11.1 - compatible integrated GPUs at which point even DX11.1 - based acceleration will matter.
A laptop with higher end graphics will use more battery to render your text and generate more heat.
Why do you assume you need a high-end GPU for this?
If you want to be "enlightened" go take a physics course.
I could also suggest computer graphics theory courses to you.
Do you seriously think you're going to be done with it faster because it renders text a few milliseconds faster?
Usually doing something faster DOES indeed mean it being over in less time. I have no idea what other kinds of "faster" you know of.
Even if it does somehow benefit you, why should your usage take preference over mine?
You're complaining about performance improvements. That's like complaining about your new car going faster and using less gas than the previous one.
My point was, they are bragging about crap that is of small benefit compared to the negative aspects of Windows 8.
Then you should have complained about that, but no, you complain about increased performance.
Indeed, the blog post doesn't mention GDI with even one word and basically talks only about speeding up DirectX, Metro and HTML. Unless some Microsoft representative clearly says GDI+ has also been improved I'd say it's safe to assume the answer is "no, and never will be."
Those areas aren't really where hardware acceleration is important. We've got overpowered CPUs with cores just waiting for jobs.
Enlighten us, what areas are more important then?
Why would I care if text renders in 100 microseconds or 300?
You may not care, but anyone with a mobile device with a battery will; the less time the machine spends active the more time it can spend in idle which quite obviously results in less heat and power consumption.
Are you trying to imply rendering things in less time than before and more efficiently with a GPU produces more heat than the previous method of using more time to render the same thing less efficiently on the CPU? You might wish to rethink that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everybody is always aware of the potential future consequences of their actions. I'm sure Ernie Ball didn't realise what they were getting into when they chose to use Microsoft software. They thought they just bought some software, but didn't realise that they were losing quite a bit of freedom. When confronted with that reality, they promptly got rid of the software and regained their freedom.
Yet they do admit they're still using some proprietary software, and that the decision in the beginning to go with Microsoft, the decision to move to Linux, the decision to continue using some proprietary stuff was their own decision. No one else decided that for them, they made the decision themselves, and that's the whole point of what I have been saying all along: you are not granting freedom, you are taking freedom away if you don't allow people to make their own decisions.
I'm one of those who doesn't understand. Would you please explain?
RMS drives freedom of source-code: in his opinion all code should be GPLed so that you cannot decide _not_ to release your own modifications to it if you share the end-result with other people, ie. you're obligated to continue keeping the source-code free whether or not you want to. If the freedom was end-user - oriented then you'd be free to decide all for yourself what to do with the source-code, like e.g. with BSD-license. Two entirely different approaches to freedom, and you cannot have both.
I really don't see that the fact that the program is free does anything except guarantee my freedom as a user.
Perhaps you are saying that refusing to use proprietary software reduces the amount of choice I have?
No, that is not what I am saying at all.
Pray tell, what consumer-oriented OS is there that would protect against this kind of stuff? OSX doesn't, Haiku doesn't, BSD doesn't, Linux doesn't... Hell, how would the OS even do that without seriously limiting users' ability to use their own computers?
It actually says the bug is still unassigned.
What I see people arguing for is to give up some short term freedom to avoid losing much more freedom in the long term.
And that is exactly what I do not agree with. If freedom must be pushed on people even against their will then it was never freedom even in the first place.
Also, worth noting is the fact that RMS drives for freedom of code, not freedom of users; the two are mutually exclusive, and this is exactly what so many advocates either choose to deliberately ignore or just simply do not understand.
Perhaps, if gamers back then had decided that they were only going to play Free games, that would have become the dominant paradigm, and these excesses wouldn't have occurred, or at least would have been exceptions rather than the rule. We'll never know, but I do think that sometimes giving up a little immediate freedom can help in the long term.
I doubt that. The one, primary driving force behind DRM is greed and the one, primary force enabling it is technological advances, neither of which we can change no matter how many freedoms we decide to forfeit. Besides, if it was that easy then we should instead support Steam/Valve: Steam's DRM is really very, very benign and user-friendly compared to those employed by other companies and as such it is actually a step in the right direction. Supporting a lesser form of DRM also doesn't stop one from supporting primarily non-DRM-encumbered solutions.
Android users do not want to pay for apps
Speak for yourself, mate.
This is more-or-less what I was thinking: it's perfectly fine and reasonable to push for 'Free' as long as it doesn't take anything away from you, but if you lose something -- access to software you've paid for, the ability to do things you want to do, etc. -- then what's the point? Many F/OSS - supporters hold the idea that 'freedom' must be pushed on to people, even if it means losing actual freedoms! That is inherently illogical.
Alas, the two-component defence apparently is: the blue crystals by themselves are already toxic, but when they mix with another component the mixture becomes even more lethal.
You kids had it easy! Back in my day we scrawled our programs on the cave walls and had to relocate ourselves fully if we ran out of storage space. Not to mention that back then bugs actually meant bugs the size of your head!
And yet, there are so many other scenarios where such toys would end up in kids mouths despite their parents being perfectly good parents. Bad preschools. Older siblings. Kids climbing up on Daddy's computer desk while Daddy's in the toilet. These things happen, and in the case of these toys, the effect is much worse than it would seem due to the strong magnetics.
All the things you said apply to almost anything! Kids can end up with all kinds of things they shouldn't and even die, yet those products aren't banned. Hell, you'd have to ban even basic ball-pens, then, as there are several cases of severe trauma, lost eyes and death associated even with those. So why are Buckyballs or similar stuff any different? All I see is a witch-hunt by people who do not care to actually think for a few more minutes before crying foul.
GW2 is for kids who think X-box 360 graphics are cutting edge.
At 30 years of age I'm hardly a kid, plus I have never owned an Xbox of any kind nor do I consider it worth ever owning, either. I just don't understand what that has to do with GW2.
You don't pick up quests anymore by going to spot X, you go to spot X and wait a few minutes for the event to start. Woot!
You've quite clearly misunderstood more-or-less everything, it is nothing like what you describe. With a comment like that you've just shot down all your credibility with one sentence. Well done.
Despite its flaws, Guild Wars 2 is the best MMO I've ever played.
I heartily agree. It is not perfect, but well, it is impossible to create perfect so that's kind of a moot point. For the price of the game you still get hundreds of hours worth of content and stuff to do and you're not even playing a monthly fee, so there is no pressure to "get your money's worth," so to speak; you just take your time and play as much or as little as you feel like over any period of time.
Now, the thing with Guild Wars 2 is that since there is no usual carrot-on-a-stick to it as is on WoW, TERA et.al. it doesn't suit everyone. Some people like the treadmill - style gameplay and the feeling of progression -- no matter how artificial it is -- and as such I try not to recommed Guild Wars 2 to these people, they'll just get disappointed and then complain loudly how bad Guild Wars 2 is, giving the game undeserved negative impression. I only recommend Guild Wars 2 to people I believe might enjoy it. Unfortunately, there ain't many such people in my circles of people I know meaning that I'll be quite lonely on release :/
No, they're pissed because a toy that was never meant for children is being given to children by stupid parents and as such they cause the toy to be banned. It's like giving a power-drill to a child and then crying foul when the kid gets hurt: "oh, just get a clue and find something else, parents don't need to pay more attention and I'll just continue shoving fingers in my ears while yelling lalalalalala..."
Your logic is flawed:
The caveat is that power consumption must not increase during the shorter period of operation for this to be true.
Yes, I could have been anally retentive and said "if the power consumption of the combined devices over the timeframe of the task was smaller than the power consumption of both devices combined over the timeframe of the same task, but with only one of the devices actively performing the task" but.... that wouldn't have added anything to the discussion.
But your CPU will only use less power and produce less heat, because instead of running the GPU in low power mode to move a few pixels around, it will now run in fully accelerated mode.
I guess you've never used a PC where you could actually hear the fans speed up when 3D acceleration becomes active. Otherwise you'd realize they speed up because more heat needs to be moved away, and that heat is the result of using more power.
You're comparing the rendering of a visually complex computer game with complex geometric shapes, hundreds of megabytes of textures, antialiasing, pixel and vertex shaders and so on to.... rendering lines, triangles, rectangles and fonts. Think about that a little bit more.
Now, finished thinking yet? Well, do you use Windows 7? Is your GPU fan running at max speed at all times? No? Then quite obviously what you're describing is not happening and will not happen; Aero is already using GPU - acceleration, Firefox and Internet Explorer use Direct2D and DirectWrite for GPU - acceleration, Flash-player uses GPU - acceleration, and yet even you mention that the fan only speeds up when a more demanding task is thrown at it. The tasks discussed here are definitely not demanding and could already be handled by GPUs a decade ago.
Some of you sure are acting obtuse here. Rendering text a few milliseconds faster isn't going to translate into finishing your work faster.
And? No one even claimed that, so you're again complaining about something that hasn't even been an issue in the first place. You just keep jumping all over the place with your arguments.
No, I'm not complaining about performance improvements, dullards, I am complaining about the rest of it
Look at your first post here: you can quite clearly see yourself saying that that isn't where hardware acceleration is important, and when asked where it is then you completely avoid answering the question. You also complain about not caring if the text renders in 100ms vs. 300ms, which quite clearly is a complaint about not caring about performance-improvements. And here you are, saying you're not actually complaining about the things you were complaining. If you don't like the UI-changes to Windows 8 then you should just learn to say that. Even better if you were actually capable of forming coherent posts where you explain your reasons for not liking it, then someone might actually care.
I think the power saving arguments are tripe as well. I believe the opposite will occur.
Feel free to live in your deluded imagination. If, however, you feel adventurous and actually wish to verify your claim you can simply install a Linux-distro and accelerated drivers for X, charge battery to 100% and use the computer until the battery goes empty, then re-charge and disable Xv, XRender and EXA acceleration and see how long it lasts. You'll very quickly realize how much of a difference accelerating things on a GPU does.
Enjoy the regressions in usability and stay impressed by trivial things.
Rather unimpressive attempt at an ad-hominem attack.
I don't understand. From what I can see the "selling point" of Windows 8 is metro, is touch screen, is the new UI. You, and many others, I'm sure, will be instantly disabling these features?
There isn't really much to disable, I'll just use the traditional desktop with one or another Start-menu replacement, that's all.
Guess what, I don't blame your for this, I just wonder why you don't choose an operating system to fit your needs, whether it's sticking with Windows 7 or moving elsewhere. Is it a good idea to "upgrade" and then spend time and effort working around those upgrades to have what you had before?
I want the performance-improvements and increased battery-life offered by Windows 8, that's more-or-less the whole reason for me to upgrade, though being able to better support family and friends with Windows 8 is a good side-effect. Since I bought a new laptop at the beginning of June I am eligible for the discounted price of Windows 8 Pro, I'll have already saved that money just by skipping one Subway-meal and as such the price is not really a deterrent. I will be sticking with Windows 7 on my desktop, though, as it is not eligible for this discount.
As for "moving elsewhere": that is unfortunately not a suitable solution for my use-cases.
So hardware acceleration of image rendering will speed up reading and unpacking files .... amazing I thought it would just speed up the display of graphics ...?
Uh, the article specifically does indeed mention speeding up compression and decompression of GIF, JPEG and PNG, so yes, generating the thumbnails or reading the thumbnails for display will be faster.
Right, so when you have wobbly windows under compiz, it totally rendered as usual. SURE! Especially with blur and other 3d effects. All in pseudo 3d, just usual 2d stuff.
Compiz handles rendering the whole window AFTER the window's contents has already been rendered by other subsystems. Compiz has nothing to do with the rendering of the elements inside the window itself, like e.g. in GTK+ - applications GTK+ handles the rendering of the contents. The article in question here, however, talks about rendering those contents and it has nothing to do with compositing, ergo your comparison with compositing managers is pointless.
Why do you think we still use CPU?
Because the two cater to entirely different kinds of workloads, the CPU is good for general computing tasks whereas GPU excels at highly-parallel tasks with a pre-defined output. Why do you think GPU-acceleration was even invented in the first place?
Basically through into it big data or small data - if the size is not hardcoded it will do the same amount of work.
..... I really would like to know where you have gotten such an absurd idea.
Aye, seems it's that way now. Still, it's better than having to use the fullscreen menu, and I'm fairly certain someone will eventually actually do a proper Start-menu replacement. (Of course it'd be best all around if there was no need for such a replacement in the first place, but alas....)
Your mobile device is going to have graphics capabilities that will matter for this?
Try to find a SINGLE modern GPU that cannot e.g. accelerate Direct2D or DirectWrite. Those have been around for atleast a decade now. So the answer to your question is quite obviously "yes." The functionality that relies on DX11.1 won't be accelerated for now, but it won't take long before the next-generation Intel and AMD - processors will ship with DX11.1 - compatible integrated GPUs at which point even DX11.1 - based acceleration will matter.
A laptop with higher end graphics will use more battery to render your text and generate more heat.
Why do you assume you need a high-end GPU for this?
If you want to be "enlightened" go take a physics course.
I could also suggest computer graphics theory courses to you.
Do you seriously think you're going to be done with it faster because it renders text a few milliseconds faster?
Usually doing something faster DOES indeed mean it being over in less time. I have no idea what other kinds of "faster" you know of.
Even if it does somehow benefit you, why should your usage take preference over mine?
You're complaining about performance improvements. That's like complaining about your new car going faster and using less gas than the previous one.
My point was, they are bragging about crap that is of small benefit compared to the negative aspects of Windows 8.
Then you should have complained about that, but no, you complain about increased performance.
Indeed, the blog post doesn't mention GDI with even one word and basically talks only about speeding up DirectX, Metro and HTML. Unless some Microsoft representative clearly says GDI+ has also been improved I'd say it's safe to assume the answer is "no, and never will be."
Those areas aren't really where hardware acceleration is important. We've got overpowered CPUs with cores just waiting for jobs.
Enlighten us, what areas are more important then?
Why would I care if text renders in 100 microseconds or 300?
You may not care, but anyone with a mobile device with a battery will; the less time the machine spends active the more time it can spend in idle which quite obviously results in less heat and power consumption.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Compositing managers do not render the contents of the windows.
Are you trying to imply rendering things in less time than before and more efficiently with a GPU produces more heat than the previous method of using more time to render the same thing less efficiently on the CPU? You might wish to rethink that.