These benchmarks are probably a bit outdated, here's the most recent I could find
I'm not sure how much I trust it cuz it sounds a bit too good to be true... And that happens to be a copy-paste almost verbatim of this article which is sus af.
We kinda need these tests run again by a reliable source (like michael)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GNOME X.Org vs. Wayland Performance + Power Usage On Fedora 32 With AMD Renoir Laptop
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pranav View PostDoes that mean I should stop using Wayland?
Why there is no improvement yet?
Is this mainly because of Firefox not being so great on Wayland?
That means that even though you're running Wayland natively, X will still need to be 'emulated' under Wayland to run any X-only app.
The fact that there is barely any increase runing Wayland under these conditions is a very good sign.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
asdX XWayland Wayland Chrome Nvidia 895 Freeze - Chrome Nouveau Freeze Freeze - Firefox Nvidia 610 225 240 Firefox Nouveau 385 375 375
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by raster View Post
IF you had read the text rather than just some numbers, you wouldn't need that reply as I clearly said it's not a brilliant benchmark but an indicator... perhaps you should read a bit more? Like the bits where I say I work on said code so you can be sure this indicator is not just a "on startup" but a general trend over a longer runtime too which I clearly indicate as well as this is just an indicator of where things are going. I actually profile my code regularly in gory detail from a range of angles, and an app is running - a terminal, not empty. You didn't read the bit where I said '"I spent all of 5 minutes on this and i need to go to sleep now" which is why it's not clearly not exhaustive. I clearly qualified and detailed the situation already - thus text to go read. It'd up to a much more involved benchmark to do that and I had and still have many other more important things to do, but I do know Wayland can easily do better than X11.
I've been doing this for over 25 years. Wayland is the first X alternative that has gotten any traction and it is decently designed. I've watched the hopefuls come and go and leave X11 still standing, until now. X11 is still standing but Wayland has not gone... it's growing. I was totally "Oh ANOTHER X11 replacement? Do you want to join the corpses of Y-windows, Berlin and DirectFB and possibly some other lesser knowns? Ummm no thanks" for the first few years because of this. I changed my mind as time went on for good reasons.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kravemir View Post
Nvidia doesn't care about 1% of non-users,... Not much lost for them. Nvidia does cover and support their target customers. This phoronix screaming minority is very much non important, don't fancy yourself,... Don't act like entitled child, that Nvidia should listen to you,... You're not that important, and Nvidia shows it right to yours face. Deal with it.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by duby229 View Post
Ok, so nVidia doesn't care about its users... And that's a good thing how???
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by duby229 View Post
Nope, you're wrong. The OSS drivers have had working multimonitor support for decades, they have had working Xrender acceleration since at least 2007, they have had working and standards compliant (though incomplete) OpenGL acceleration since at least 2010. -ONLY- nVidia stands out in these bugs and problems.
Also note that XRender was expiremental and buggy for some time before it stabalized just like any new X extensions (see https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=88842 ) . Also some bugs were due to KWin and not NVidia for example (i.e. see https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=83835) where even Intel had issues with XRender). Broken XOrg configs also caused issues.
You have to forgive me for being skeptical of what you are complaining because historically people just blamed NVidia for everything just because its NVidia even though there were actual bugs in compositing engines and/or XOrg. AMD also has had issues (fglrx or otherwise).
Do note that I was talking about video hardware acceleration, that is not XRender. XRender is hardware acceleration for compositing which is something else entirely. You kind of derailed the discussion.
Originally posted by duby229 View PostAnd yet RadeonSI has had standards compliant OpenGL from it's very inception. Why do -you- think -only- nVidia drivers can't impliment standards compliant OpenGL? And why do you defend that? Your stance on nVidia is totally asinine.
In the end this is the argument that standards end up being how people use the software and not how its specified on paper. Vulkan solves this problem entirely BTW (Vulkan was deliberately designed to not work unless you use it properly because of this specific issue).Last edited by mdedetrich; 17 June 2020, 05:44 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
Thats because they were mainly X11 bugs, AMD also had similar issues.
Regarding OpenGL spec, they don't follow the OpenGL spec completely because a lot of games don't follow it either. I mentioned it in some other thread.
Even the open source drivers currently have a lot of issues. Note that I have been running X11 + Nvidia on a laptop with multiple displays for the past decade. The biggest issue I have experienced is actually optimus/render offload.
Note that I typically ran KDE if that makes a difference.
And yet RadeonSI has had standards compliant OpenGL from it's very inception. Why do -you- think -only- nVidia drivers can't impliment standards compliant OpenGL? And why do you defend that? Your stance on nVidia is totally asinine.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: