Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Gala?

    I'd really like to see the performance of Gala, the coming-up mutter-inspired window manager of Elementary OS. It gives a good user experience but I'm really curious of the true capabilities.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Michael, clarify here in the forums: was KDE set to unredirect fullscreen windows or not? If so, great, then obviousl theres a regression. But If not then this entire article can be tossed out because the basic premise is "Window manager doesnt matter."

    Like I really dont bash your articles much but you not setting that option from time to time is mine--and others-- biggest peeve with you because theres a certain line between "Keeping the defaults" and "common sense for benchmarking."
    I disagree, sticking to the default is the most realistic test. What is 'unredirect fullscreen'?
    Every benchmark someone says it's useless because: "Distro Y sucks, distro X wasn't tested", "gcc didn't A,B,C parameters", "kernel ....", "Testing version 3.5.71 is stupid", "Gosh, proper gaming is done with low latency real time kernel."....

    Last time I saw a blog post by kwin dev about Phoronix benchmark. He thought the benchmark was useless, because it didn't use kwin with three different drawing back-ends and n other settings. If everyone had their way, each chart would have thousands of items.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talvik View Post
    I disagree, sticking to the default is the most realistic test. What is 'unredirect fullscreen'?
    Every benchmark someone says it's useless because: "Distro Y sucks, distro X wasn't tested", "gcc didn't A,B,C parameters", "kernel ....", "Testing version 3.5.71 is stupid", "Gosh, proper gaming is done with low latency real time kernel."....

    Last time I saw a blog post by kwin dev about Phoronix benchmark. He thought the benchmark was useless, because it didn't use kwin with three different drawing back-ends and n other settings. If everyone had their way, each chart would have thousands of items.
    If you do gaming benchmarks, do them right.

    These benchmarks are an absolute joke. What's the point of these? Have you got any conclusion at all? Do you even know the conditions these were done on?

    I don't understand "sticking to the default is the most realistic test" either. What's the most realistic for you? Should all distros using openbox by default (as it appears to be the best for gaming)? AFAIK, in KDE you just have to press 'Shift+Alt+F12' to disable compositing or check the option 'Disable compositing in fullscreen' and do the tests on fullscreen.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talvik View Post
    I disagree, sticking to the default is the most realistic test. What is 'unredirect fullscreen'?
    Every benchmark someone says it's useless because: "Distro Y sucks, distro X wasn't tested", "gcc didn't A,B,C parameters", "kernel ....", "Testing version 3.5.71 is stupid", "Gosh, proper gaming is done with low latency real time kernel."....

    Last time I saw a blog post by kwin dev about Phoronix benchmark. He thought the benchmark was useless, because it didn't use kwin with three different drawing back-ends and n other settings. If everyone had their way, each chart would have thousands of items.
    Even on Windows you have to manually install drivers to get good gaming performances. Mom/Grandma types aren't going to understand how to do that, but Gamers are. The same rules apply to Linux gamers really. If everywhere on forums/blogs/etc people are saying "check this setting in your DE for better game performance" then a lot of folks are going to do it.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Benchmarks don't show anything hugely surprising; the lightest desktops/non-composited WM's will yield best performance.

    I too am curious how KDE is used though and whether there is a regression. Either way shouldn't affect me too much, I just disable desktop effects before i play a game anyway since KDE makes it so easy to do (toggle with alt-shift-F12)

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    499

    Default

    What I notice about these tests is that excluding a few worst cases, even composition isn't as bad as it used to be to game. The DE and driver makes have really cleaned up thier work to prevent slow down alot and it shows.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default Here is the result of test I did some time back

    Link

    Results of fgl_glxgears (5 sec)

    Gnome Classic (without effect): 4540.2
    Ubuntu Unity: 3935
    Gnome Classic (with effect): 3881.6
    KDE Plasma Workspace: 3776.8
    Gnome: 3693.2
    Cinnamon 3D: 3679.4
    Ubuntu (Unity 2D): 1307
    Cinnamon 2D: 1104

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpressrazor View Post
    Ubuntu (Unity 2D): 1307
    Cinnamon 2D: 1104
    That's odd... Maybe because they use something fglrx doesn't support? wow...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    There were two things I got from those benchmarks: 1) light-weight desktops are in general slightly faster than heavyweights (but usually not more than about 20% which implies for casual games it may not be an issue), and 2) there are a few unusual cases like Prey on Unity where the slowdown is higher than expected.

    Michael, you're benchmark articles tend to lack two things: 1) a conclusion (like the above, expanded a little but still short, at the end) and 2) a little speculative discussion on why, e.g. one of the first questions in the forums was:
    Michael, clarify here in the forums: was KDE set to unredirect fullscreen windows or not?
    Especially since this feature has to be selected manually but has a significant effect it's worth a quick mention.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    127

    Default

    we need a universal call, like Windows has, for programs to be able to tell the WM to disable compositing when needed.

Posting Permissions

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