On 3/14/12 12:42 PM, Arthur Huillet wrote:
> My objective is to be able to compare to other solutions (and, if other
> solutions happen to beat VirtualGL, try to figure out why and do something
> about it).
> I heard various people claim "better performance than VirtualGL" when
> presenting their o
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:44:44 -0500
DRC wrote:
> I'm not sure how measuring the overhead of VirtualGL is relevant unless
> it is in the context of potentially reducing that overhead or comparing
> it to other solutions.
My objective is to be able to compare to other solutions (and, if other
sol
We run into this question from time to time, usually from end users who
ask me why GLXgears only performs at 500 frames/second in VirtualGL
instead of 5000. My answer is always the same: does anything over 30
fps matter? Unless you're running a heads-up flight simulator, the
answer is almost cer
