Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

[curaga]

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).

[curaga]

@mark_

XDM = X Display Manager, the original login thingy?

[mark_]

@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

[dungeon]

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.

[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?

[bleubugs]

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 :-)

[89c51]

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

[randomizer]

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.

[varikonniemi]

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.

[F i L]

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.

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.