<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I think gtkperf is more a tool to test gtk non-regression or optimization (on a same X server), than a tool to test X. I tried to use it to see if EXA optimizations that optimize everything by doing nothing (screen stay black), makes Gtkperf more efficient. the result was that xorg without EXA management overhead (so without any optmization) gives better results than xorg with a EXA optimization that can't be more efficient... Indeed, gtkperf ony creat pixmap, but doesn't try to move / blit / compose... all the thing a acceleration can be used for. so what you need is a perf tool more usefull that measure the user experience feeling (scrolling, transparency, move, composition). Does somebody know one ? I'm also interested. arnaud Alan Coopersmith wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4B17D5CE.5030106@sun.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">prudhvi raj wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">My question is why is the performance improvement shown through x11perf is not getting reflected when we run gtkperf?? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> x11perf is a wonderful way to make you optimize code that no one ever calls. Notice that all the x11perf tests are single color, and use the Xlib drawing routines, while gtk is multicolor and usually does not use Xlib drawing. </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>