Ubuntu's Unity Has Room To Improve Performance

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

  • bwat47
    replied
    I like unity3d, but the performance is pretty poor. For example on my video card (intel ironlake) the dash blur makes everything noticeably laggy when I open the dash, especially if I open it over a video or animated image or something. Static blur doesn't seem to work right for me (no matter what it only shows the wallpaper), and no blur makes the dash totally unreadable. If they can't make it perform well they should have just kept the dash the way it was in previous versions (less transparency, darker color, no blur).

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    "Ubuntu's Unity Has Room To Improve Performance"

    Can you actually run out of room on that one?
    You can, if the perf under the DE is the same as under bare X.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Have there been any GNOME Shell benchmarks? I'm curious if GNOME 3.x has introduced any regressions that are being picked up in Unity. It appears to be a new source of tearing on nvidia hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • baffledmollusc
    replied
    As one can see from these quick Intel Linux graphics results, the removal of the Unity 2D is coming even while the default Unity desktop with Compiz still isn't as fast.
    I'm not sure that characterisation is entirely fair.

    From the benchmarks, in some cases 3D is faster, and in some cases 2D is faster. The only non-trivial difference is with Xonotic 0.6.

    Based on this very limited set of (3D gaming) benchmarks, dropping Unity 2D in order to simplify things seems reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    "Ubuntu's Unity Has Room To Improve Performance"

    Can you actually run out of room on that one?

    Leave a comment:


  • AJenbo
    replied
    I only saw 2D having a slight higher fps then llvmp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    The CPU is listed as a quad core, but it's a dual with HT. I thought PTS was supposed to handle that?
    In the system information it reports the number of logical cores, within the more detailed CPU table (not shown in article) is where it shows physicsl vs. logical, instruction set extensions, cache sizes, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    The CPU is listed as a quad core, but it's a dual with HT. I thought PTS was supposed to handle that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vadi
    replied
    Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
    It would be interesting to know technically why Unity bottlenecks some games and why it doesn't have an effect on others.
    Please be sure you're doing updates on Unity when making this claim - there have been several big updates to it where I've noticed that they listed performance improvements. I had a beef with Unity as well when it dropped my 60+ fps game down to about 40fps unless I was running the game widowed - but they've fixed that since.

    Leave a comment:


  • ickle
    replied
    More strange results

    Don't have access to unity on my ivybridge test machine, but a comparison is here: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SU-1208163SU36

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X