Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt5's Linux Requirements Cause Problems

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

  • #16
    This whole "article" is totally nonsense, it's simply spreading FUD. I don't see any "valid points" there. How could have Phoronix posted something like that?

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't understand this article -_-

      It ends with:
      The reason I am soooo pissed is because I have been writing a new Qt Desktop Environment for the last 1-1/2 years and Qt devs broke it by removing the QX11 API's. And my new desktop is blazzzzzzing rubber melting FAST!!!!
      While it's complaining about XCB all the time but still ending that his new desktop is blazing fast.. So, do i just need to ignore his complaints and conclude that XCB improve performance?

      I'm just confused.. If someone would care clearing this up..?

      @ the Michael bashers..
      Please guys, show a little more respect! He's doing an awesome job with those news articles! Remember, he's doing it all alone! Oke, not every article is of good quality, but in general i'm happy with the news that he posts. So please, give him a bit more credits for the work he's doing.
      Last edited by markg85; 09-15-2012, 11:30 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Michael, there are 2 vulgar words in this article. Please don't publish such rants.

        Comment


        • #19
          This is one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen on phoronix, and that's saying something.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re

            Originally posted by lethal View Post
            Right, so Qt5 *isn't* OpenGL based, as he says it is.
            Except for QQuick2 which I'm sure his Qt desktop environment isn't using anyway.
            It is. Qt 5 "Widgets" are not using OpenGL because they were not actually modified, a backwards compatibility decision.
            Qt 5 "QWindow" is using OpenGL. And they recommend porting your code to Qt 5 which means to switch from QWidget to QWindow.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              Qt 5 is using the raster engine, so no GUI operation is actually hardware accelerated (that model of accelerating "lines" and "triangles" on 2D GUIs has been outdated for years now on most modern operating systems.) So using XCB is fine.
              Qt 4 is 6.5 times slower with raster engine than with native engine on Intel G33 graphics card

              qtperf4 -graphicssystem native
              QLineEdit - 0.022 s
              QComboBox - 0.19 s
              QComboBoxEntry - 0.183 s
              QSpinBox - 0.015 s
              QProgressBar - 0.021 s
              QPushButton - 0.016 s
              QCheckbox - 0.007 s
              QRadioButton - 0.019 s
              QTextEdit add text - 0.057 s
              QTextEdit scroll - 0.048 s
              QPainter lines - 12.95 s
              QPainter circles - 13.1 s
              QPainter text - 1.356 s
              QPainter pixmap - 0.088 s
              Total: 28.072001 s

              qtperf4 -graphicssystem raster
              QLineEdit - 0.043 s
              QComboBox - 0.336 s
              QComboBoxEntry - 0.327 s
              QSpinBox - 0.024 s
              QProgressBar - 0.04 s
              QPushButton - 0.017 s
              QCheckbox - 0.014 s
              QRadioButton - 0.035 s
              QTextEdit add text - 0.175 s
              QTextEdit scroll - 0.148 s
              QPainter lines - 86.218 s
              QPainter circles - 86.222 s
              QPainter text - 8.689 s
              QPainter pixmap - 0.867 s
              Total: 183.154999 s

              Comment


              • #22
                EGL?

                Intel Mesa developers have stated that GLX is "pretty much" deprecated and you should be using EGL anyway. See http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTE3MTI.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Indeed.

                  Originally posted by chuckula View Post
                  Somebody made a post saying that using XCB means you are relying on Mono... that is a completely factually wrong statement and I'm a little confused as to how anyone could even come up with something that weird.

                  A little more seriously, could the original writer of the rant look into using EGL instead of GLX? Apparently GLX is quickly on its way to deprecation anyway, so EGL could be the right way to go. I'm not sure what sort of functionality he needs, but I hope that the XCB bindings (or another API interface) would give it to him. If he is just writing a window manager then I'm not sure why he needs low-level access to the guts of OpenGL anyway...
                  Completely agree. MESA developers discourage the use of GLX. EGL is usable and is a Khronos standard. And since Qt is all about portability, his code should run on more platforms, EGL being platform agnostic.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Fazer View Post
                    Michael, there are 2 vulgar words in this article. Please don't publish such rants.
                    Coarse language is a fact of life. If it really bothers you, turn on a parental filter. Personally, I can't stand advertising, so I block that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                      Qt 4 is 6.5 times slower with raster engine than with native engine on Intel G33 graphics card

                      qtperf4 -graphicssystem native
                      QLineEdit - 0.022 s
                      QComboBox - 0.19 s
                      QComboBoxEntry - 0.183 s
                      QSpinBox - 0.015 s
                      QProgressBar - 0.021 s
                      QPushButton - 0.016 s
                      QCheckbox - 0.007 s
                      QRadioButton - 0.019 s
                      QTextEdit add text - 0.057 s
                      QTextEdit scroll - 0.048 s
                      QPainter lines - 12.95 s
                      QPainter circles - 13.1 s
                      QPainter text - 1.356 s
                      QPainter pixmap - 0.088 s
                      Total: 28.072001 s

                      qtperf4 -graphicssystem raster
                      QLineEdit - 0.043 s
                      QComboBox - 0.336 s
                      QComboBoxEntry - 0.327 s
                      QSpinBox - 0.024 s
                      QProgressBar - 0.04 s
                      QPushButton - 0.017 s
                      QCheckbox - 0.014 s
                      QRadioButton - 0.035 s
                      QTextEdit add text - 0.175 s
                      QTextEdit scroll - 0.148 s
                      QPainter lines - 86.218 s
                      QPainter circles - 86.222 s
                      QPainter text - 8.689 s
                      QPainter pixmap - 0.867 s
                      Total: 183.154999 s
                      Are you using sna?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                        Are you using sna?
                        Yes with Intel driver 2.20.7 and Xserver 1.12.4

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                          Yes with Intel driver 2.20.7 and Xserver 1.12.4
                          FWIW, in my case the difference is even bigger, in favor of native, too. Mobile Intel Sandybridge, SNA. But this is slightly off-topic

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JS987 View Post
                            Yes with Intel driver 2.20.7 and Xserver 1.12.4
                            Here's the results on my machine (intel ironlake with sna, xorg 1.12.4, kernel 3.5, kde 4.9.1)

                            raster: http://i.imgur.com/Cmlv1.png
                            native: http://i.imgur.com/wXEiZ.png

                            Definitely not as big of a difference on my machine, but native does seem slightly faster here too.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jrdls View Post
                              Completely agree. MESA developers discourage the use of GLX. EGL is usable and is a Khronos standard. And since Qt is all about portability, his code should run on more platforms, EGL being platform agnostic.
                              EGL hardly has an installed base right now. Maybe in five years you can rely only on it.

                              By my count, EGL is available on mobiles, mesa git, recent blobs. Not on much of the linux systems, nor Windows or Macs. (not 100% sure on the EGL situation on Macs)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Of course crass language is a part of life.. its the part that causes me to cease caring about reading Phoenix articles which are often incorrect but at least retained some semblance of professionalism.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X