Quoting JP Dong: > Dear all, > > I evaluated the performance for DirectFB and XvMC driver for VIA C3 > Unichrome display. The performance from the former was not as good as the > later. On a 1GHz machine, the CPU usage from the former was almost about > 70-80% for a clip like mission impossible II; however, it was about 30-40% > for the same clip if the later driver was used.
XvMC uses hardware motion compensation and therefor has less CPU usage. > I am not sure whether this was roughly right, since in theory (??) frame > buffer has less overhead from the X services. Does this mean that the > implementation of the frame buffer driver is not as good? Are there any > other comparison data indicating otherwise? If so, what can I do to > improve the performance of the DirectFB? I have the integration of VIA's HW MPEG support for DirectFB in my pipeline. -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
