Performance improvement shown by x11perf not reflected in GtkPerf

[Vincent Torri]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Florian Mickler wrote:

> 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/

yes, i gave to Carl that link :-) and others too (expedite, as you can 
read in his blog)

Vincent Torri

>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xorg-devel mailing list
> xorg-devel at lists.x.org
> http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
>
>