Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Ubuntu's Unity Decision Affects 2D Performance Too

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,629

    Default Ubuntu's Unity Decision Affects 2D Performance Too

    Phoronix: Ubuntu's Unity Decision Affects 2D Performance Too

    Last week I delivered OpenGL/3D benchmarks of Ubuntu 12.10 when comparing the performance of the default Unity desktop to the now-defunct Unity 2D environment. Canonical's decision to kill Unity 2D means that for those now forced to use the Compiz-based Unity may experience lower frame-rates, high power consumption with Unity-over-LLVMpipe, and other differences. Additional testing has shown how Unity is affecting the 2D graphics performance.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17776

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,193

    Default GNOME Classic

    I don't like Unity, so I use the GNOME Classic session.

    The package is 'gnome-session-fallback'.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    i think we're exagerating a bit .. unity 3d is doing quite well in those benchmarks .. equalling and performing better in certain areas and equalling performing not so well in others .. personally unity 2d has never been the saviour for mine and much slower systems as everyone cracks it up to be .. the performance was the same if the graphics could support 3d drawing .. so we can't assume anything to get some real info on the LLVMpipe'd Unity 3D .. i'm sure there will be a drop in performance, but as far as these benchmarks show, with the added ability to support 1 DE over 2 seperate ones i'm sure optimization will be able to be done on a far better level than either Unity 2d or Unity 3d can do seperately .. Unity 2d isn't useless by any means, i just think that instead of Unity 2d developers always having to play catch up with new unity specs, they can actually work on one code base and do what they do best .. and thats make Ubuntu feel less bloated

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Don't care. It's fast enough and with compositing it means it has to render 2d less. So it more then evens out in most cases.

  5. #5

    Default "My results are bad and I should feel bad."

    Some^W Most of those results look mighty strange, and it would be hard to make any judgements based on them. An alternative look at IVB GT2 with SNA and gnome-shell is here: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SU-1208209SU05. I had some UXA results as well to compare, but alas I am still waiting for those to upload.

  6. #6

    Default

    What's the point of comparing the llvmpiped version of Unity with Unity 2D on such a powerful and modern system? No one would have used Unity 2D on that system, anyway.

    Come back with some Pentium M results and we'll talk.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    What's the point of comparing the llvmpiped version of Unity with Unity 2D on such a powerful and modern system? No one would have used Unity 2D on that system, anyway.

    Come back with some Pentium M results and we'll talk.
    Dear troll, I run JWM on Phenom x6.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Dear troll, I run JWM on Phenom x6.
    Dear supertroll: I'm so happy for you. Now back to the point: can we have a comparison of Unity 2D and Unity 3D on a machine that would actually need the llvmpipe driver? It's pointless to run these tests on systems that would have never run Unity 2D in the first place because they're are capable of running Unity 3D. Isn't that obvious?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    Dear supertroll: I'm so happy for you. Now back to the point: can we have a comparison of Unity 2D and Unity 3D on a machine that would actually need the llvmpipe driver? It's pointless to run these tests on systems that would have never run Unity 2D in the first place because they're are capable of running Unity 3D. Isn't that obvious?
    Oh how I love popping in to break all these "nobody does" "everybody does" generalizations

    You're saying that it's completely impossible for somebody to actually _prefer_ not to run Unity 3d if their machine is capable of it. I'm here to prove you wrong, my machine is well able to run Unity 3d, yet I don't.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    You're saying that it's completely impossible for somebody to actually _prefer_ not to run Unity 3d if their machine is capable of it. I'm here to prove you wrong, my machine is well able to run Unity 3d, yet I don't.
    Sigh... No. I'm not saying that.

    Anybody else out there?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •