No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Comparison: 6 Desktops, 5 Driver/GPUs

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by stqn View Post
    Maybe Xfce had compositing enabled and it slows things down?
    However, last time I tried the excellent benchmarking tool glxgears under Xfce, enabling compositing actually improved the frame rate significantly!
    glxgears is definitely not a benchmark. framerates change by doing nothing more than moving the window. it is absolutely impossible to get comparable data using it. It just isnt possible to get repeatable data.

    Again glxgears is not a benchmark. it is useful in showing that direct rendering is working, thats all, and even then its just for a show.


    • #32
      I?m glad someone did bite. Thanks .

      I just did a few benchmarks with and without Xfce compositing.

      without compositing: 1230 fps
      with compositing: 1450 fps

      Trackmania Nations Forever (lowest possible settings):

      1280?960 windowed:
      without compositing: 37.6 fps.
      with compositing: 37.6 fps.

      1920?1200 fullscreen:
      without compositing: 29.4 fps.
      with compositing: 30.1 fps.

      (Intel Core i3 550, linux 3.6.9 64 bit, mesa 9.0.1, xf86-video-intel 2.20.15, wine 1.5.19, vblank_mode=0)

      So it appears that under Xfce compositing has no impact on a ?real? game, but improves things on a program that renders very little. (Unfortunately I don?t think I have another game to benchmark.)


      • #33
        I am not familiar with the current state of xfce, but I do believe that its compositor is 2d only, you wouldnt notice a difference with 3d apps... and again the reason that glxgears gave differing results is because it is not a benchmark.


        • #34
          Originally posted by stqn View Post
          I?m glad someone did bite. Thanks .
          I interpreted your post as a joke. It was rather amusing, too. After all, it does say that glxgears is not a benchmark the second you launch it


          • #35
            I for one am disappointed by the lack of quality of the article. Don't get me wrong, the data is great. But, with a massive comparison like this, it would have been great to glean a little more insight from the article itself.

            For example, the World of Padman V1.2 test, shows that for the Radeon test, KDE got 15 FPS, on hardware that is clearly capable of delivering almost 200 FPS on EVERY other DE, using the same drivers. No matter how bad KDE is at gaming, it shouldn't lag that far behind. Clearly there is some sort of anomaly. If you don't want to take the time to figure out why, at least mention it as an anomaly. Perhaps the test machine had a problem?

            Secondly, and yes it's been mentioned before, but I feel it should be mentioned again. The colours are REALLY annoying. You can clearly see KDE, and the rest all look the same.

            Thirdly, I don't think you should allow data to be compared for any values that are unplayable, such as 10 FPS. The bars seem to indicate that DE X is slightly better than Y, when in reality, all of them are unplayable.

            EDIT: In short, at least give us the impression that you've given a few minutes thought about the results. Currently, it feels like the entire article was simply run by a script and then copied as an 'article'.
            Last edited by StephanG; 12-15-2012, 10:34 AM.