Here's another benchmark, with an SDL 2D game, teeworlds, running full
screen:

no wm: 220 FPS
metacity --no-composite: 220
metacity --composite: 130
compiz: 218
xcompmgr: 130
compton: 129

I really think that the user's choices would be:
1) compiz, for every PC that supports it,
2) metacity --no-composite, for any PC that doesn't support compiz and that 
isn't able to spare 50%-80% of their FPS,
3) metacity --composite, ONLY for the minority of the PCs with graphics cards 
that can't run compiz and with so awesome CPUs that can spare 50-80% of their 
FPS. If you can find an example of such a PC, please let me know, currently I 
don't know of any. I do know of thousands of examples in category (2) though.

Since `metacity --composite` is so much slower, affecting all apps and actions 
from simple drawing to scrolling to moving around windows to watching videos to 
game playing etc,
I'd like to again ask you to consider NOT making (3) the preferred session for 
gnome-flashback for 16.04.

I.e. gnome-flashback-compiz could be the default (proposed one),
and gnome-flashback-metacity the non composited version,
with the --composite option only available as a gsetting for the minority of 
the people that would need it.

Thanks!

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157

Title:
  Metacity's compositing is too slow

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+subscriptions

-- 
desktop-bugs mailing list
desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs

Reply via email to