On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:38:45 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
