Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dungeon View Post
    And also seems like supertuxkart have no problems with fps on intel, like radeon has - in some supertuxkart tests i see there radeon is even slower then on llvmpipe
    Which parts? Might want to report those as bugs (to either mesa or stk, depending on the cause).

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,130

    Default

    @mark_

    XDM = X Display Manager, the original login thingy?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    @mark_

    XDM = X Display Manager, the original login thingy?
    yes, the plain standard easy and ugly thingy. That one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDM_%28display_manager%29

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Which parts? Might want to report those as bugs (to either mesa or stk, depending on the cause).
    This:
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...PTS-SUPERTUX37

    Compared with this:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...RA-TUONGPV7583

    And then results with intel:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...FO-INTELMESA88



    Could someone rerun supertuxkart with current radeon on non-unity maybe.
    Last edited by dungeon; 01-31-2013 at 04:19 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    313

    Default

    One thing that I find interresting ist, that gnome-shell is sometimes the slowest and sometimes (one of) the fastest desktop(s) according to these benchmarks. How can that be? Shouldn't there be a uniform slowdown due to composite?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default Don't composite fullscreen windows

    I guess that all compositor where tested without their respective option to disable compositing on fullscreen. That would explain why they are all in the same ballpark. For Enlightenment, we don't turn this feature on by default as most driver out there are buggy and I guess all compositor have the same behavior. So I recommend to go in Settings/Composite/Advanced/Memory/Don't composite fullscreen windows for Enlightenment if you want better number.

    Now if you look at the number as a benchmark for just how fast compositor are at pushing frame, it is still interesting. I am wondering why some test case show E17 as been slow when other it is more at lead of other composite manager. I should spend time playing I guess :-)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Slightly off topic but Michael weren't you supposed to be publishing some steam benchmarks? Are these comming?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark_ View Post
    so: the less complex the WM the more FPS. What about xdm? If Xfce gives me 10fps more than KDE and xdm gives me 10fps more than Xfce this could be totally worth it for a gaming machine. Please include xdm next time.
    I think you are after twm. xdm is a display manager and has nothing to do with window management.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Enlightenment e17 was benchmarked with stock settings, which does mean it does not redirect fullscreen windows. It automatically does this, if the option is turned on. For full compatibility it is not default to on.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark_ View Post
    so: the less complex the WM the more FPS. What about xdm? If Xfce gives me 10fps more than KDE and xdm gives me 10fps more than Xfce this could be totally worth it for a gaming machine. Please include xdm next time.
    I doubt that's really the reason. Most WMs *shouldn't* really be executing much of anything when a App is fullscreen. My guess is that these results reflect Windowed Game performance with default WM settings. Obviously OpenBox & Xfce are going to win here, since they're non-composting. That's just a guess though, we need more info to know for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by oleid
    One thing that I find interresting ist, that gnome-shell is sometimes the slowest and sometimes (one of) the fastest desktop(s) according to these benchmarks. How can that be? Shouldn't there be a uniform slowdown due to composite?
    It's possible some games where run in fullscreen while others where not. We need more info. It's also possible (if the games where run in fullscreen) that specific games don't properly request fullscreen, and therefor Gnome/Unity/KDE composite them anyways. I don't know for sure, but it is interesting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •