Thomas White wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:54:46 +0100 > Helge Hafting <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree. If X were the bottleneck with such a weak graphics chip, >> then X would be usesless on workstations with good graphics cards. >> Because the X overhead would be the same in either case. (Well, it >> would be cpu-dependent, but the kind of card wouldn't matter.) > > It's not quite as simple as saying that Glamo is to blame for > everything. Consider for example that GTK is loads faster on Xglamo > than xf86-video-glamo - there's clearly some influence of the driver > here.
A bad driver can certainly make things slower. But the initial suggestion was to do "simplified" graphics outside X, in the hope that it'd be faster without X overhead. To which the reply is - the X overhead is negligible. So graphics without X won't improve the speed. Of course it will help if the X driver is pathetic, but then the effort can be spent on improving/fixing the X driver instead. The "X overhead" won't stand in our way. Helge Hafting _______________________________________________ Shr-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shr-project.org/mailman/listinfo/shr-devel
