Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Qt/GTK Speed On Unity/KDE/Xfce/LXDE/GNOME/Razor

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,626

    Default Qt/GTK Speed On Unity/KDE/Xfce/LXDE/GNOME/Razor

    Phoronix: Qt/GTK Speed On Unity/KDE/Xfce/LXDE/GNOME/Razor

    Shared earlier today were OpenGL game benchmarks under different Linux desktops. Now to complement those earlier results are 2D performance tests under Unity, KDE, GNOME Shell, Xfce, LXDE, and Razor-qt...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    327

    Default

    LXDE looks really crappy here, what's going on? Can't see why openbox with LXDE's taskbar tanks performance like that... in fact, that seems outright wrong, like super bug wrong.

    XFCE on the other hand is about what I expect.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Performance of desktop environments

    I would like to see benchmarks of Steam games (Half Life, Serious Sam3, Team Fortress 2, ...) for different desktop environments, especially Unity, Gnome, KDE and LXDE.
    From my experience, Unity is the desktop that give the lowest fps for any OpenGL game.

    As these games are mostly available for Linux, Windows and Mac OS, it may also be a good benchmark to compare graphics drivers for all 3 platforms.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Michael: Benchmarking Compositors this way is pointless please go read this

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoronix
    Also holding their ground fairly well against Xfce were Unity with Compiz and LXDE while KDE, LXDE, and Razor-Qt were further back.
    (emphesis mine) You mean Gnome Shell?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drago01 View Post
    Michael: Benchmarking Compositors this way is pointless please go read this
    1. the way it is done here it is not pointless at all
    2. your article is WAY too outdated. gnome shell with mutter is using unredirected for fullscreen already since a long time. in this article it still talks about a mutter without that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    44

    Default

    It is well known that compositing hurts framerates in games. For DEs where compositing can be toggled on/off, both options should be tested to get a fuller picture.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    1. the way it is done here it is not pointless at all
    2. your article is WAY too outdated. gnome shell with mutter is using unredirected for fullscreen already since a long time. in this article it still talks about a mutter without that.
    That article only meantion Gnome Shell as NOT BEING TESTED.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    1. the way it is done here it is not pointless at all
    2. your article is WAY too outdated. gnome shell with mutter is using unredirected for fullscreen already since a long time. in this article it still talks about a mutter without that.
    1. It isn't most of this benchmarks are not fullscreen and therefore the FPS they report might not be the FPS they actually draw on screen (please read the (non outdated) article).
    2. I know (I wrote that code after all) but this is irrelevant see 1.

    Also unredirected windows should have more or less the same performance everywhere assuming no background work taking up resources.

Posting Permissions

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