On 7/20/05, Billy Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Stellingwerff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
FWIW, I noticed that GTK+2 performance is a LOT better on my Ati
Mobility 9200 with DRI drivers than my NVidia FX5200 with nvidia
drivers. Ati's proprietary drivers are just as slow as NVidia's, at
With the DRI drivers however, resizing the window is a LOT smoother,
and scrolling trough the entire page is smooth as silk, no matter how
hard I pull that scrollbar :P
Ofcourse, it would be better to have a real benchmark. One such app
that could prove useful here, is GtkPerf
Richard Stellingwerff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is there a way you could create a programmatic benchmark (or a command
line that does not require user interaction)?
User perception. But the difference is so huge, that I can tell with
absolute certainty that it's there. I just can't give you
On 7/21/05, Billy Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resizing mozilla tests your window manager and mozilla's rendering
more than GTK+ itself.
Correct, but both use GDK to draw their things, so what makes this
different from any GTK widget, that uses GDK internally as well?
However, since
Richard Stellingwerff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 7/21/05, Billy Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resizing mozilla tests your window manager and mozilla's rendering
more than GTK+ itself.
Correct, but both use GDK to draw their things, so what makes this
different from any GTK widget, that
Resizing mozilla tests your window manager and mozilla's rendering
more than GTK+ itself.
Correct, but both use GDK to draw their things, so what makes this
different from any GTK widget, that uses GDK internally as well?
AFAIK the mozilla family of browsers (both mozilla suite and
AFAIK the mozilla family of browsers (both mozilla suite and firefox)
use XUL as ui toolkit, not GTK. If it is the case, perhaps you should
choice another app as benchmark for measure the gtk performance.
XUL is just the description-format how widgets should be layouted -
they use the
Richard Stellingwerff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
FWIW, I noticed that GTK+2 performance is a LOT better on my Ati
Mobility 9200 with DRI drivers than my NVidia FX5200 with nvidia
drivers. Ati's proprietary drivers are just as slow as NVidia's, at 2D
performance.
How are you measuring this?
Is
Clemens Eisserer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The fact that pango could be responsible for the slowness I experience
with mozilla and especially eclipse are proofen by the fact that
low-level swt benchmarks show a compareable performance of primitive
draing functions, only text is about 3-5x slower
FWIW, I noticed that GTK+2 performance is a LOT better on my Ati
Mobility 9200 with DRI drivers than my NVidia FX5200 with nvidia
drivers. Ati's proprietary drivers are just as slow as NVidia's, at 2D
performance.
When I turn subpixel rendering on, performance sucks on both machines, though.
to speed up GTK, however I am
a bit concerned wether tuning the x11 based backend does still make
sence now when GTK is switching to cairo as rendering backend. (are
there any numbers how cairo does influence gtk's performance?)
Are there any know performance problems where man-power is needed?
Thank you
safe but it didn't help a lot :-(
I would be really interrested in helping to speed up GTK, however I am
a bit concerned wether tuning the x11 based backend does still make
sence now when GTK is switching to cairo as rendering backend. (are
there any numbers how cairo does influence gtk's
Daniel Campos wrote:
Pango seems to be quite slow, I agree with that...
Clemens Eisserer escribió:
Wouldn't it have something to do with client-side rendering the
fonts then shipping all those pixels to the server?
___
gtk-list mailing list
First of all thanks for listening and not beeing angry ;-)
Wouldn't it have something to do with client-side rendering the
fonts then shipping all those pixels to the server?
As far as I know pango only sends the pixels if no render-extension is
available - if render is available it caches
14 matches
Mail list logo
