Why WebGL is faster than Canvas?

问题

If both use hardware acceleration (GPU) to execute code, why WebGL is so most faster than Canvas?

I mean, I want to know why at low level, the chain from the code to the processor.

What happens? Canvas/WebGL comunicates directly with Drivers and then with Video Card?

回答1:

Canvas is slower because it's generic and therefore is hard to optimize to the same level that you can optimize WebGL. Let's take a simple example, drawing a solid circle with arc.

Canvas actually runs on top of the GPU as well using the same APIs as WebGL. So, what does canvas have to do when you draw an circle? The minimum code to draw an circle in JavaScript using canvas 2d is

ctx.beginPath():
ctx.arc(x, y, radius, startAngle, endAngle);
ctx.fill();

You can imagine internally the simplest implementation is

1. beginPath creates a buffer (gl.bufferData)
2. arc generates the points for triangles that make a circle and uploads with gl.bufferData.
3. fill calls gl.drawArrays or gl.drawElements

But wait a minute ... knowing what we know about how GL works canvas can't generate the points at step 2 because if we call stroke instead of fill then based on what we know about how GL works we need a different set of points for a solid circle (fill) vs an outline of a circle (stroke). So, what really happens is something more like

1. beginPath creates or resets some internal buffer
2. arc generates the points that make a circle into the internal buffer
3. fill takes the points in that internal buffer, generates the correct set of triangles for the points in that internal buffer into a GL buffer, uploads them with gl.bufferData, calls gl.drawArrays or gl.drawElements

What happens if we want to draw 2 circles? The same steps are likely repeated.

Let's compare that to what we would do in WebGL. Of course in WebGL we'd have to write our own shaders (Canvas has its shaders as well). We'd also have to create a buffer and fill it with the triangles for a circle, (note we already saved time as we skipped the intermediate buffer of points). We then can call gl.drawArrays or gl.drawElements to draw our circle. And if we want to draw a second circle? We just update a uniform and call gl.drawArrays again skipping all the other steps.

const m4 = twgl.m4;
const gl = document.querySelector('canvas').getContext('webgl');
const vs = `
attribute vec4 position;
uniform mat4 u_matrix;

void main() {
  gl_Position = u_matrix * position;
}
`;

const fs = `
precision mediump float;
uniform vec4 u_color;
void main() {
  gl_FragColor = u_color;
}
`;

const program = twgl.createProgram(gl, [vs, fs]);
const positionLoc = gl.getAttribLocation(program, 'position');
const colorLoc = gl.getUniformLocation(program, 'u_color');
const matrixLoc = gl.getUniformLocation(program, 'u_matrix');

const positions = [];
const radius = 50;
const numEdgePoints = 64;
for (let i = 0; i < numEdgePoints; ++i) {
  const angle0 = (i    ) * Math.PI * 2 / numEdgePoints;
  const angle1 = (i + 1) * Math.PI * 2 / numEdgePoints;
  // make a triangle
  positions.push(
    0, 0,
    Math.cos(angle0) * radius,
    Math.sin(angle0) * radius,
    Math.cos(angle1) * radius,
    Math.sin(angle1) * radius,
  );
}

const buf = gl.createBuffer();
gl.bindBuffer(gl.ARRAY_BUFFER, buf);
gl.bufferData(gl.ARRAY_BUFFER, new Float32Array(positions), gl.STATIC_DRAW);

gl.enableVertexAttribArray(positionLoc);
gl.vertexAttribPointer(positionLoc, 2, gl.FLOAT, false, 0, 0);
                 
gl.useProgram(program);
                 
const projection = m4.ortho(0, gl.canvas.width, 0, gl.canvas.height, -1, 1);

function drawCircle(x, y, color) {
  const mat = m4.translate(projection, [x, y, 0]);
  gl.uniform4fv(colorLoc, color);
  gl.uniformMatrix4fv(matrixLoc, false, mat);

  gl.drawArrays(gl.TRIANGLES, 0, numEdgePoints * 3);
}

drawCircle( 50, 75, [1, 0, 0, 1]);
drawCircle(150, 75, [0, 1, 0, 1]);
drawCircle(250, 75, [0, 0, 1, 1]);

<script src="https://twgljs.org/dist/4.x/twgl-full.min.js"></script>
<canvas></canvas>

Some devs might look at that and think Canvas caches the buffer so it can just reuse the points on the 2nd draw call. It's possible that's true but I kind of doubt it. Why? Because of the genericness of the canvas api. fill, the function that does all the real work doesn't know what's in the internal buffer of points. You can call arc, then moveTo, lineTo, then arc again, then call fill. All of those points will be in the internal buffer of points when we get to fill.

const ctx = document.querySelector('canvas').getContext('2d');
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(50, 30);
ctx.lineTo(100, 150);
ctx.arc(150, 75, 30, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.fill();

<canvas></canvas>

In other words, fill needs to always look at all the points. Another thing, I suspect arc tries to optimize for size. If you call arc with a radius of 2 it probably generates less points than if you call it with a radius of 2000. It's possible canvas caches the points but given the hit rate would likely be small it seems unlikely.

In any case, the point is WebGL let's you take control at a lower level allowing you skip steps that canvas can't skip. It also lets you reuse data that canvas can't reuse.

In fact if we know we want to draw 10000 animated circles we even have other options in WebGL. We could generate the points for 10000 circles which is a valid option. We could also use instancing. Both of those techniques would be vastly faster than canvas since in canvas we'd have to call arc 10000 times and one way or another it would have to generate points for 10000 circles every single frame instead of just once at the beginning and it would have to call gl.drawXXX 10000 times instead of just once.

Of course the converse is canvas is easy. Drawing the circle took 3 lines of code. In WebGL, because you need to setup and write shaders it probably takes at least 60 lines of code. In fact the example above is about 60 lines not including the code to compile and link shaders (~10 lines). On top of that canvas supports transforms, patterns, gradients, masks, etc. All options we'd have to add with lots more lines of code in WebGL. So canvas is basically trading ease of use for speed over WebGL.

回答2:

Canvas does not execute a pipeline of layers of processing to transition sets of vertices and indices into triangles which then are given textures and lighting all in hardware as does OpenGL/WebGL ... this is the root cause of such speed differences ... Canvas counterparts to such formulations are all done on CPU with only the final rendering sent to the graphics hardware ... speed differences are particularly evident when massive number of such vertices are attempted to be synthesized/animated on Canvas versus WebGL ...

Alas we are on the cusp on hearing the public announcement of the modern replacement to OpenGL : Vulkan who's remit includes exposing general purpose compute in a more pedestrian way than OpenCL/CUDA as well as baking in use of multi-core processors which might just shift Canvas like processing onto hardware

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28867297/why-webgl-is-faster-than-canvas