Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Developer Still Pursuing Triple Buffering, Deep Color For GNOME

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    I still believe this driver issue should be properly fixed in the driver.
    [...]
    What Daniel is doing is to raise the GPU usage a little via the triple buffering causing it to not go down so far with its clock. Its a workaround, nothing more.
    Simply not true. W/ !1441, Shell's animations are significantly smoother even with locked min GPU clocks (Polaris). W/o !1441, with locked max GPU clocks mutter drops frames as usual.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
      I honestly can't believe how fast GNOME and Ubuntu has become. I've had the same computer, the software and OS are just getting noticeably faster.

      Huge thanks to Daniel and others for their continued hard work. And Michael, thank you for allowing me to stay up-to-date on everything. That lifetime Phoronix buy during the holidays was one of my best buys. Salute
      I've watched Linux get better and better generally over the decades so I know the feeling. Sometimes a new distro install felt like buying a new computer due too performance going up so much. I love the idea of deeper color support but I'm not too sure triple buffering will be that big of an advantage to justify the expense.

      So the question is will triple buffering have that big of a pay off, on modern hardware, considering the effort to implement? I've honestly have not noticed that many issues in the GNome environment that would convince me that triple buffering is needed. It just sounds like a kludge to get mis matched hardware to work better together.

      Comment


      • #23
        I disable vsync via .drirc and enable tear free rendering via xorg.conf on Intel and Radeon.

        I believe this also does the "triple buffering trick", at least for X11 (is there an xorg.conf equivalent for Wayland?).

        This configuration runs notably smoother. Still not as good as old compiz/unity or Kein, but better.

        I also think the performance/technical design of Gnome Shell is embarrassing... Good that Canonical's employee is saving gnome's a** (ironic thoug, as I assume gnome's progress eventually destroyed unity 8).

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by stormcrow View Post

          Define modern? Ubuntu runs on a lot of systems that don't have discrete GPUs or the most current Intel iGPUs. I have a Sandy Bridge laptop up in the closet that might benefit from triple buffering at times. There's also R-Pis who's GPU can't be considered the fastest GPUs even in the ARM world. Resource contention happens. Triple buffering will probably help even recent GPUs at times, such as when those same GPUs are doing GPGPU tasks.
          That may all be well and true but should effort be wasted on decades old hardware or hardware that simply has crappy GPU support? I have to agree with some others, better to keep it KISS and support the mainstream. It really comes down to ones perspective on the support of old and marginal hardware and that isn't always an easy call to make. In this case I'd rather see all his effort go into deep color and other features.

          You kinda support my position, what good is that closeted laptop even after this sort of improvement happens? Most likely you will install an upgraded distro and find out the hardware still sucks so back in the closet the laptop goes. I don't mean to be a pain here but I've sent a lot of hardware to recycling over the years because no matter how good Linux has gotten; UNIX like OS's, on modern hardware, are just far more desirable.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by stormcrow View Post

            No they aren't. They're telling people the recommended minimal specs for Ubuntu. You used the term modern. Ubuntu never did on that page. You need to define what you mean by "modern". I stand by my statement. Resource contention occurs even on recent GPU hardware. Triple buffering will be a useful feature on even recent GPU hardware.
            Well if you don't know what modern is, I'm not sure any discussion will be reasonable. However I really see no point in writing software for a small minority of hardware, especially when there is so much to do and in this case we will be seeing a marginal payoff if triple buffering does happen.

            This is the open source world and frankly the developer is free to do whatever he likes. I just don't see value in putting a lot of effort into hardware that is grossly outside of the mainstream. How useful triple buffering will be is yet to be seen, but in my case running modern hardware, I'm just not that concerned.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post
              This guy needs fix this shi* file manager called "nautilus", because these lazy gnome developers team can't do it.

              Thumbnailing images (and others) in Nautilus is dog slow (#856) · Issues · GNOME / Files · GitLab
              Bug #869793 “Nautilus is very slow when opening folders with man...” : Bugs : nautilus package : Ubuntu (launchpad.net)

              2021 and Nautilus still using single thread process to generate thumbnails!
              To me, every single GTK file manager I tried feels slow as hell. Even when I simply navigate the folders, there is a slight noticeable delay and I can briefly see the loading cursor. They are utterly slow when I for example delete a large few GB folder that contains thousands of files. Dolphin on the other hand is probably the snappiest file manager I've ever tried.
              Last edited by user1; 12 July 2021, 02:43 PM.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                And that's why Gnome is the Linux graphical desktop.

                No other graphical desktop environment is as complete or as full-featured as Gnome where Wayland is concerned. And X can go burn in a fire.
                It's also the Linux graphical desktop I can't be productive in. I had some success with Gnome 2.0 (I was annoyed by the separate bars, combining them never worked for me - weird placement), anything past that, I can't wrap my head around. I mean, I could, but it just doesn't feel right.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by wizard69 View Post

                  This is the open source world and frankly the developer is free to do whatever he likes. I just don't see value in putting a lot of effort into hardware that is grossly outside of the mainstream. How useful triple buffering will be is yet to be seen, but in my case running modern hardware, I'm just not that concerned.
                  I really, really disagree with this. I have a relatively old laptop, a 2010 MBP that is no longer supported by Apple. I had to do a tiny bit of hacking, but got Ubuntu 20.04 LTS running on it with nvidia driver support.

                  Tweaked the living crap out of it, literally everything you can do with a custom compiled kernel and every other sensible tweak (mitigations=off, don't curse me). You should see it fly now.

                  My point being, that's 11 year old hardware. But it's still a 2c/4t, 8GB of RAM, SSD, GeForce GT 330M. I use the 5.4 LTS kernel which is the last to support nvidia-340 drivers, and that computer is now *good* until 2025. That's winning, in my opinion. Not tacky at all either if you ask me, and way way faster and more fun than MacOS has ever ran on it.

                  So I really, truly salute people like Daniel that work on those optimizations. It really shows on old hardware. It's not meant for new hardware, but doesn't mean they can't benefit from it either.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post

                    Well if you don't know what modern is, I'm not sure any discussion will be reasonable. However I really see no point in writing software for a small minority of hardware, especially when there is so much to do and in this case we will be seeing a marginal payoff if triple buffering does happen.

                    This is the open source world and frankly the developer is free to do whatever he likes. I just don't see value in putting a lot of effort into hardware that is grossly outside of the mainstream. How useful triple buffering will be is yet to be seen, but in my case running modern hardware, I'm just not that concerned.
                    The thing is, GNOME is slow even on fairly recent hardware. Is 2018 thinkpad with HD620 and 8th gen mobile i7 a legacy laptop to recycle already? Heck it's not even that snappy on Ryzen 7 2nd gen with RX570 and at times it stutters.
                    BTW I couldn't tell much of a difference between GNOME running on my current laptop and my 2011 Dell with i3. Maybe in 10 years we'll finally get actually modern machines that can run GNOME at 60 fps.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by bple2137
                      The thing is, GNOME is slow even on fairly recent hardware. Is 2018 thinkpad with HD620 and 8th gen mobile i7 a legacy laptop to recycle already? Heck it's not even that snappy on Ryzen 7 2nd gen with RX570 and at times it stutters.
                      BTW I couldn't tell much of a difference between GNOME running on my current laptop and my 2011 Dell with i3. Maybe in 10 years we'll finally get actually modern machines that can run GNOME at 60 fps.
                      I don’t have performance problems on a Broadwell iGPU or a Radeon 6800. Zero stuttering. This is on Ubuntu 21.04.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X