Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME X.Org vs. Wayland Performance + Power Usage On Fedora 32 With AMD Renoir Laptop

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

  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    Well, for the time being, with all its problems, X is better simply because it works where Wayland implementations still don't. That's my #1 criterion for deciding which software is better (as a user), everything else take a back seat.
    But you are right pointing out there are more ways to look at this.
    Like I said, there are reasons X11 is better. I don't fault anyone for using it, I fault people who wrongly attack Wayland or have a superiority complex by using X11.

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by MrCooper View Post

    Modern GPUs use 4 bytes per pixel even when not using the alpha channel.
    True, but it still doesn't even come close.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    DanL Read the source It’s mostly about Xwayland and cutting support
    Even if that's true, you just contradicted yourself that "all the contributors moved to Wayland", so you're talking out your ass (as usual).
    And what is "cutting support"? I see a few commits that remove or refactor/fix old features, but they are minority, even if not counting XWayland changes. So you're talking out your ass (as usual).
    Do you sense a theme here?

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Where is my complaint? I'm merely making an observation.

    Thanks for proving my point though, that you're over-sensitive about naysayers. It's fine if you think X11 is better; there are arguable reasons why it is. But people like you insist it is better and get in a hissy-fit over anyone who disagrees or doesn't do things their way. It's the way you've always known and you're afraid of change. That's how devoutly religious people act when someone doesn't follow the same religion.
    Note: I don't have a problem with religious people, I have a problem with those who act holier-than-thou and refuse to listen.
    Well, for the time being, with all its problems, X is better simply because it works where Wayland implementations still don't. That's my #1 criterion for deciding which software is better (as a user), everything else take a back seat.
    But you are right pointing out there are more ways to look at this.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCooper
    replied
    Originally posted by caligula View Post

    A single 1920x1080x24b backbuffer requires a bit less than 6 MB of memory. Typically you don't need a full alpha channel since the whole layer shares the opacity value for transparent windows.
    Modern GPUs use 4 bytes per pixel even when not using the alpha channel.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by frank007
    X11 is the most complete solution. What are you complaining? An example: are devoutly religious people thore still using Lxde instead of Gnome or Plasma? All make the exactly same thing, but Lxde is much way faster.
    Where is my complaint? I'm merely making an observation.

    Thanks for proving my point though, that you're over-sensitive about naysayers. It's fine if you think X11 is better; there are arguable reasons why it is. But people like you insist it is better and get in a hissy-fit over anyone who disagrees or doesn't do things their way. It's the way you've always known and you're afraid of change. That's how devoutly religious people act when someone doesn't follow the same religion.
    Note: I don't have a problem with religious people, I have a problem with those who act holier-than-thou and refuse to listen.

    Originally posted by acobar View Post
    Really? Can you explain what/which is it?
    Primarily, it's the vehement insistence that X11 is and always will be the way to go. It's the willful blindness to any reason why Wayland may be better. It's the undermining that Wayland is a failure, without understanding what makes it different.
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 15 June 2020, 09:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    Fair. These tests are pretty useless though unless you're comparing apples to apples, which means using whichever native backend instead of a native backend vs a go-between like xwayland.

    Leave a comment:


  • s_j_newbury
    replied
    Originally posted by royce View Post
    Michael it's unclear from the tests whether the apps run (tesseract, firefox) are run on their wayland native backends rather than through xwayland.
    AFAIK he always uses the defaults for the distribution when running under each session, which would mean Xwayland is always used. As I mentioned earlier, I always build my Gentoo systems with Wayland as default for Firefox, GTK, SDL2, etc., which is easier than messing with environment variables, I don't know if any mainstream distribution does so.

    Leave a comment:


  • royce
    replied
    Michael it's unclear from the tests whether the apps run (tesseract, firefox) are run on their wayland native backends rather than through xwayland.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackiwid
    replied
    Puh, I wonder if the goal should not be to reduce the linux users from it's 2-4% to 0.5% when I read so much ignorant messages about any linux topic, it's now not only about systemd but also wayland and any topic, btw the same people that hate on systemd for not being unix enough hate on wayland when X is clearly one monolitic monster, while wayland is a more neat elegant solution. I saw some not so great benchmarks 1 or multiple years ago and I also was a bit confused, but my reaction was not to start a flame war against wayland and make it my death enemy, but A realise it's weaknesses but also inform myself what the advantages of wayland are and that my perception that it will be just much faster than X11 was wrong. And later when I looked into my desktop exwm and it's wayland support the point was that not even emacs has wayland support, so exwm can't even start a implementation. So I will not use wayland for 3-10 years from now we will see But so what? X11 runs for most stuff fine so what's the problem? I can see a bit the hate towards Systemd because people feel that it got forced on them, even that is questionable but it can be enoying to change the distro to not use it, but X will be availible for all distros for the next 10 years probably in different states, default -> nondefault but installed, -> you have to install it. Including a full backwards compatibility over xwayland which at least to my knowledge was not there in systemd with service files (or was it?). So A just relax and B speed and ram usage are not the only metric. There was a promise of pixel perfection, then you have security advantages and just some features that don't work in X period. Just one example and that might be outdated information: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desk.../msg00010.html but I doubt it, HiDPI support should be better in Wayland than in X11 which is a very important feature, but that is not the only thing. That all said I wonder why it takes more ram, there must be XWayland running which than of course if you have both systems in the ram it uses more ram than only 1, another would be that some debugging symbols would not been removed in the public release. Somebody have there more information?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X