Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Overall Xmarks only went up about 5%, but Xmarks are a highly obsolete > benchmark anyway (1-bit only graphics, far more arc/ellipse drawing and > less > image passing than current desktops, no anti-aliased text/alpha blending). > Some operations went up a lot more - others not so much, or even decreased. > Unfortunately, I don't have a better benchmark to point to. >
For those who are unaware of this, Xmarks is a set of weighing factors used against the output of X11perf, based on the most frequently used graphics operations in a very early 90's Solaris desktop. The X community could really use a better way of evaluating delivered performance than XMarks - but someone needs to step up to the plate and examine the actual protocol traffic used by our desktops today, and develop a benchmark that will act as a better predictor of actual delivered desktop graphics performance... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
