I'm trying to solve some animation problems that can't be solved (or I don't understand how) in OpenCL, such as fragment overlays, which are impossible for the inverse transformation but easy for the forward transformation. So I do it through SOP and rasterize, but it's incredibly slow in animation. I keep thinking about this—the viewport does exactly the same thing as rasterize: it sends rays from the camera at each pixel and generates a 2D image. Moreover, the viewport's resolution is much higher, and it calculates color, shading, and a lot more, all at 60-100 fps. But rasterizegeo for the same geometry will drop me to 5-10 fps if there are a lot of polygons. The difference is huge, but why? The essence is the same.
It would be funny to stream Vulcan's viewport directly to the COP.

We are using Vulkan directly in Rasterize Geo. So it should be using the same pipe as the viewport.

One issue is that we may have to move the geometry to the GPU differently?

What platform are you on? In some cases we have to revert to software for rasterize geo despite the viewport using hardware :<

Capybara + Joint Deform -> rasterize geo is fast for me, for example....

Windows, 4070ti.
For example, here are the flying fragments, 1000 pieces in total. In SOP, it's 63 fps, but when we insert it into Rasterize Geo, it's 4-5 fps. Even though the layer is 1024*1024 versus a 2K window in SOP. I checked and set the layer size to 2048*2048, and the same Rasterize Geo showed less than 2 fps. It is clear that rasterizing a float attribute is much faster than float3, such as color. The difference with SOP is approximately two orders of magnitude, not percentages. This is surprising. Copernicus itself is quite fast, which is good. But Rasterize Geo ruins the speed if anything is animated.