Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Unity Decision Affects 2D Performance Too

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by energyman View Post
    so what? a lot of people don't have the money for such a rig. Phoronix follows the same bad lead of all the other sides - only looking at high end systems, ignoring the masses.
    The point was that despite having a "high-end rig", I use a simple WM, not the latest compositing whizzbang.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      The point was that despite having a "high-end rig", I use a simple WM, not the latest compositing whizzbang.
      "The point" is, despite people like you, who spend a fortune in equipment then choose to run the lightweight version of something (a rare species indeed), Unity 2D existed ONLY because some systems can't run Unity 3D. Those systems happen to be in the low end, not the high end, so testing Unity 2D on a high end system is targeting the few freaks like you who devote powerful systems to run lightweight components. That leaves not only the vast majority of people out, but precisely the people the developer was targeting with Unity 2D before, now with Unity 3D via LLVMpipe.

      I don't expect you do understand it, but I hope Michael does and he repeats the testing on a low end system incapable of running Unity 3D via hardware acceleration, which is exactly what the LLVMpipe driver is for.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by energyman View Post
        so what? a lot of people don't have the money for such a rig. Phoronix follows the same bad lead of all the other sides - only looking at high end systems, ignoring the masses.
        read what this man writes for it is of value

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
          "The point" is, despite people like you, who spend a fortune in equipment then choose to run the lightweight version of something (a rare species indeed), Unity 2D existed ONLY because some systems can't run Unity 3D. Those systems happen to be in the low end, not the high end, so testing Unity 2D on a high end system is targeting the few freaks like you who devote powerful systems to run lightweight components. That leaves not only the vast majority of people out, but precisely the people the developer was targeting with Unity 2D before, now with Unity 3D via LLVMpipe.

          I don't expect you do understand it, but I hope Michael does and he repeats the testing on a low end system incapable of running Unity 3D via hardware acceleration, which is exactly what the LLVMpipe driver is for.
          I completely get your point, and while I usually agree (like when Michael only tests SSDs), in this case, testing an older cpu doesn't provide much value.

          Such an old system (for example the Pentium M you mentioned) is likely not going to be using a HTML5 browser to run graphics-heavy 2d/3d demos (such as benchmarked in the article), or using the OpenGL backend of Qt. The remaining benches, X and gtk microbenchmarks, mostly tied.

          The result of that article would be that llvmpipe'd Unity is unusable on such hw, which everybody already knows.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            I completely get your point, and while I usually agree (like when Michael only tests SSDs), in this case, testing an older cpu doesn't provide much value.

            Such an old system (for example the Pentium M you mentioned) is likely not going to be using a HTML5 browser to run graphics-heavy 2d/3d demos (such as benchmarked in the article), or using the OpenGL backend of Qt. The remaining benches, X and gtk microbenchmarks, mostly tied.

            The result of that article would be that llvmpipe'd Unity is unusable on such hw, which everybody already knows.
            You thought you understood the point, but you didn't. Unity 2D DOES work on a Pentium M. If Unity 3D via LLVMpipe doesn't work there, Canonical has made a huge mistake by dropping Unity 2D. That's what's at stake here. Powerful current systems are completely out of the question. Testing on an older CPU not only provides a lot of value, but it's the only meaningful test at all, since Unity 2D was there for that type of hardware and the LLVMpipe driver is supposed to replace it.

            Of course any test has value to someone. In this case, a tiny minority you represent is happy to see Unity LLVMpipe performing on a powerful system. The rest of the world will use Unity 3D on such a system and Canonical knows that.
            Last edited by Aleve Sicofante; 08-22-2012, 05:06 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              It is not very likely that U 12.10 will run on all Pentium M as they do not support non-pae kernels anymore - problem solved

              Comment


              • #22
                Sigh (again) Pentium M was just an example.

                The point is, which are the CPUs Canonical was targetting with Unity 2D? Since that has been replaced by Unity 3D via LLVMpipe, is the replacement working on that same hardware? A reviewers task is to check if a piece of hardware or software works in the intended environment. The intended environment for Unity 2D was not high end hardware. Neither it's replacement's.

                Is it really that hard to get?

                Comment

                Working...
                X