John Martin wrote: > Bart Smaalders wrote: >> >> The X community could really use a better way of evaluating delivered >> performance than XMarks - but someone needs to step up to the plate >> and examine the actual protocol traffic used by our desktops today, >> and develop a benchmark that will act as a better predictor of actual >> delivered desktop graphics performance... >> > The protocol from clients is probably becoming noise. What happens > to a simple XDrawLine request after it gets to the server depends greatly > on the desktop being used. The conventional model was the request > was sent directly to the graphics board and the rendering happened to > the onscreen memory. We are on the cusp of switching to compositing > desktops, so the rendering may now happen to offscreen graphics memory > or even system memory. I believe you will soon find matching hardware > to expected desktop graphics performance depends more heavily on the > desktop > being used than the client rendering commands. >
<I'm using compiz myself, when I don't need to use bugster (grr).> If what you mean is that I need to select first if I want to use a compositing window manager+xserver, that makes perfect sense. Don't I still care about delivered client performance, though? Or does it all go so fast that it doesn't matter? - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
