Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2D Also Bad For Ubuntu Unity Against KDE, GNOME, LXDE, Xfce

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

  • 2D Also Bad For Ubuntu Unity Against KDE, GNOME, LXDE, Xfce

    Phoronix: 2D Also Bad For Ubuntu Unity Against KDE, GNOME, LXDE, Xfce

    In continuation of last week's OpenGL benchmarks under Unity, GNOME, KDE, Xfce, and LXDE desktops from Ubuntu 12.10, here are benchmarks looking at the 2D performance of these different Linux desktop environment choices when testing both the Intel UXA and SNA acceleration back-ends.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17868

  • drakkan
    replied
    I think would be useful to compare kde performance with desktop effects completly disabled

    Leave a comment:


  • Hamish Wilson
    replied
    I agree on the LXDE sentiment, with the caveat that this has only applied recently. It has improved quite a bit in the past year, but it used to be something of a quirky, buggy mess. Light yes, but quirky. But they seem to have gotten most of those issues worked out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jebril
    replied
    I think LXDE is a very unappreciated DE in the Linux environment, for the blazing speed it provides with a completely functional panel/environment is pretty astonishing and more props should be given to something like that. I have to say also, that I've had less problems (an easier time solving them also when I did) with LXDE than any other DE.

    I would be interested to see how things like Openbox, Enlightenment, Fluxbox and other WMs that can replace environments stack up to the real DEs.

    Leave a comment:


  • markg85
    replied
    Originally posted by sheldonl View Post
    While we are hammering on Unity, perhaps we should be hammering on the KDE guys as well.
    I was wondering about that as well. KDE seems to lose compared to unity in terms of performance. That is if you ignore the wealth of issues a benchmark like this has and just take the given numbers..

    Leave a comment:


  • boast
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
    And what exactly is this real work if I may ask?
    No idea. And also martin, kwin developer, says
    We optimize for real desktop usage, so I do not care at all about any game rendering performance
    when talking about game benchmarks, so I don't know what "real desktop usage" means either. Might exclude multimedia too?

    Linux's desktop use might be developers/programming only. So thats why I said one shouldn't expect "real graphics cards" to be used or tested on linux

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigaldo
    replied
    Originally posted by boast View Post
    Well, according to the posts here, linux is only used for real work which doesn't require "actual" graphics cards. A couple of NAND gates and some latches for a frame buffer would be all 90% of linux users really need.
    I'm not sure how to take your post(maybe it has a bit of "irony" in it too, or serious?).
    And what exactly is this real work if I may ask? I'm not sure what posts you're reffering to.
    (And I wouldn't take phoronix readers, even more so registered phoronix readers or any tech site's readers as a reliable sample of linux users, maybe as a sample of more advanced users mostly )

    Besides, a gpu of any sort can help for rendering more than games etc, like webpages, documents, videos and more, if I am not mistaken that is. So all users would welcome it ..
    (I assume real work would also require some internet research now and then and possibly writing some document. I doubt it's all done in a virtual terminal. And what about graphics design? Ain't that real work? :@ )

    Oh, back on topic, since this are benchmarks regarding graphics, I think we should see a (more powerful) graphics card too. Sorry intel, you're doing good work, but it's not as powerful as what I consider a graphics card(and I believe it isn't meant to be). I mean, isn't that technically right? It's a gpu, not a "card".
    (intel gpu and a graphics card , see the difference? xP)
    Also we see some intel benchmarks and they even contain game framerates(sometimes only intel). While newer intel graphics are viable for at least some of those games, I believe it's more realistic to see the performance on discrete cards as well(I believe it's more important there actually ..). Or gamers prefer integrated graphics these days?
    (here it wasn't games, but still graphics ..!)

    Leave a comment:


  • sheldonl
    replied
    Originally posted by garegin View Post
    what do you expect. you have a buggy window manager that hasn't hit 1.0 yet and a crappy graphics stack that was designed in the 80s. the big names have absolutely no interest in making desktop features better because the money from linux is in running database clusters or a web server. oh did i mention an office suite ten years behind and running on java.
    Troll much?

    Leave a comment:


  • garegin
    replied
    what do you expect. you have a buggy window manager that hasn't hit 1.0 yet and a crappy graphics stack that was designed in the 80s. the big names have absolutely no interest in making desktop features better because the money from linux is in running database clusters or a web server. oh did i mention an office suite ten years behind and running on java.

    Leave a comment:


  • sheldonl
    replied
    What is surprising is how poor the KDE performance is

    While we are hammering on Unity, perhaps we should be hammering on the KDE guys as well.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X