Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

6-Way Linux Desktop 2D/3D Performance Comparison On Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    So once again Micheal has not benchmarked actual performance, but performance under defaults of Ubuntu developers. Once again a useless benchmark, since the DEs/WMs were not run with same settings. A sad performance for a person running a benchmark site.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
      So once again Micheal has not benchmarked actual performance, but performance under defaults of Ubuntu developers. Once again a useless benchmark, since the DEs/WMs were not run with same settings. A sad performance for a person running a benchmark site.
      It isn't a useless benchmark - benchmarks are the MOST relevant when they're as close to the average setup as you can get. These benchmarks obviously don't show the true potential of each DE, but it takes hours to properly tweak and configure just 1 DE to perform optimally. No matter how many optimizations Michael makes, there's always going to be some nerd who says "dude you forgot to X your Y, this test doesn't tell us anything" when it might only give a 0.1% difference. The purpose of these benchmarks was to see which DE performs the best. If you optimize all of them equally, generally speaking, they should proportionally all increase at approximately the same rate, proving absolutely nothing different. So, that makes such optimizations a waste of time in the end.

      There is no such thing as satisfying every user unless you spend an entire day benchmarking a single DE showing varying setups. KDE and GNOME were the only environments that should have had another separate set of results - one with compositing and another without.
      Last edited by schmidtbag; 03-12-2014, 11:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        It isn't a useless benchmark - benchmarks are the MOST relevant when they're as close to the average setup as you can get. These benchmarks obviously don't show the true potential of each DE, but it takes hours to properly tweak and configure just 1 DE to perform optimally. No matter how many optimizations Michael makes, there's always going to be some nerd who says "dude you forgot to X your Y, this test doesn't tell us anything" when it might only give a 0.1% difference. The purpose of these benchmarks was to see which DE performs the best. If you optimize all of them equally, generally speaking, they should proportionally all increase at approximately the same rate, proving absolutely nothing different. So, that makes such optimizations a waste of time in the end.

        There is no such thing as satisfying every user unless you spend an entire day benchmarking a single DE showing varying setups. KDE and GNOME were the only environments that should have had another separate set of results - one with compositing and another without.
        I don't see it as on optimization to enable one feature in a DE to bring it up to par with the other DEs. Running KDE with un-redirect disabled compared with all others having that enabled tells absolutely nothing about actual performance, it only tells us that Ubuntu developers can't set sane defaults for KDE and that Michael once again is not able or willing to provide fair benchmarks.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by bakgwailo View Post
          I would assume 'Suspend Desktop effects for fullscreen windows" was not checked, as usual. If this is the case, I would suspect that enabling that would bring back in line with the other DEs.
          Last I saw, that checkbox had "if (intel) return;" due to some old bugs. Not sure if it's fixed yet or not.

          Comment


          • #15
            These tests are missing memory usage...

            As for unredirect, i often play games in a maximized window (not fullscreen), so that one (vertical) panel shows me net status, speed, temp, and other info.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
              So once again Micheal has not benchmarked actual performance, but performance under defaults of Ubuntu developers. Once again a useless benchmark, since the DEs/WMs were not run with same settings. A sad performance for a person running a benchmark site.
              I personally find the benchmark very interesting. Ubuntu is one of the biggest Linux distros for the average desktop user - whether you like it or not. Furthermore the optimum settings should be default and not require further subtle tweaking. If the DE/WM developers want the best exposure and end user experience they should pay attention to and guide down-stream integration.

              If you believe one DE is misrepresented you are welcome to elaborate and suggest concrete and specific improvements. Else I am forced to conclude it is just a sad comment for a person posting nonconstructive messages.

              Comment


              • #17
                Okay this made me curious so I ran a few benchmarks using Unigine-Heaven 4.0 myself. I tried multiple GL rendering backends, suspending effects for fullscreen apps and raster/native modes.

                XFCE 4.10 vs KDE 4.12.3 setup:
                Kernel: 3.13.6 x86_64 (Arch Linux)
                Mesa: 10.1
                CPU: Intel Q9550
                GPU: RadeonHD 4890
                RAM: 4GB DDR2

                Ungine-Heaven setup:
                Quality preset: Low
                AA: Off
                VSync: On
                Fullscreen: Yes
                Resolution: 1920x1080

                Code:
                DE   - Min - Avg  - Max  - GL  - Sus - Raster
                XFCE - 7.9 - 26.0 - 47.6 --------------------
                KDE  - 7.8 - 26.0 - 47.3 - 3.1 -  *  -  *  -
                KDE  - 7.8 - 25.9 - 45.3 - 3.1 -  *  -     -
                KDE  - 7.7 - 25.8 - 46.3 - 3.1 -     -  *  -
                KDE  - 7.7 - 25.8 - 46.5 - 3.1 -     -     -
                KDE  - 7.7 - 26.0 - 47.1 - 2.1 -  *  -  *  -
                KDE  - 7.7 - 25.8 - 46.4 - 2.1 -     -  *  -
                KDE  - 7.8 - 26.0 - 46.0 - 1.2 -  *  -  *  -
                KDE  - 7.7 - 25.8 - 48.5 - 1.2 -     -  *  -
                I'm using OGL 3.1 rendering backend for daily use and in my humble opinion that very small FPS drop is totally worth it considering the extra eyecandy and unmatchable flexibility KDE provides. And if you are a die hard gamer, nothing stops you from having a lightweight OpenBox or XFCE setup beside KDE

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Veto View Post
                  I personally find the benchmark very interesting. Ubuntu is one of the biggest Linux distros for the average desktop user - whether you like it or not. Furthermore the optimum settings should be default and not require further subtle tweaking. If the DE/WM developers want the best exposure and end user experience they should pay attention to and guide down-stream integration.
                  Wait, what? Now it is the fault of KDE developers when Ubuntu maintainers choose defaults that are not sane, because they are guiding them not enough? Are you kidding or should this be a serious comment?
                  If you believe one DE is misrepresented you are welcome to elaborate and suggest concrete and specific improvements. Else I am forced to conclude it is just a sad comment for a person posting nonconstructive messages.
                  Seriously? Did you even read the comments in this thread, were clearly was pointed out that Michael once again has not enabled un-redirecting for fullscreen rendering? Do you see the short test from siavashserver that clearly shows that there is no performance difference between KDE and XFCE if you enable that option? And how about the countless posts for every DE benchmark Michael delivers, where exactly this is pointed out?
                  Talk about nonconstructive again.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    I could not reproduce the bad KDE performance on ArchLinux using all available Unigine benchmarks (Tested xfce, fluxbox and latest KDE).

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
                      I could not reproduce the bad KDE performance on ArchLinux using all available Unigine benchmarks (Tested xfce, fluxbox and latest KDE).

                      siavashserver's results also indicate pretty much no difference (0.8% is probably not a statistically significant difference).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X