Performance improvement shown by x11perf not reflected in GtkPerf

[Florian Mickler]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:38:45 +0100 (CET)
Vincent Torri <vtorri at univ-evry.fr> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Arnaud Mouiche wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> you can try render_bench, written by Carsten Haitzler:
> 
> http://www.rasterman.com/files/render_bench.tar.gz
> 
> it mesures some operations, maybe not all you want though.
> 
> Vincent Torri
> 


Isnt this was Carl Worth talked about in:
http://cworth.org/intel/performance_measurement/ 

Last Paragraph:
"The punchline is that we now have an easy way to benchmark 2D
rendering in actual, real-world applications. If you see someone
benchmarking with only toys like x11perf or gtkperf, go ahead and point
them to this post, or the the cairo-perf-trace entry in the cairo FAQ,
and insist on benchmarks from real applications."

Which i hereby duly do.

Cheers,
Flo