Anyone else think X has a performance problem ?

psmith johnsmithdoe14 at googlemail.com
Tue Mar 24 11:48:06 UTC 2009


Alan Cox wrote:
>> I've got boxes at home running FC6, F8, and F10. The FC6 box is an old 
>> AMD Athlon 2Ghz 1.5GB memory, the F8 box is a P4 3 Ghz 2GB memory, and 
>> the F10 box is an Intel Core2 2.2 Ghz 4GB memory.
>>
>> For the test, I created a 1,000,000 line (80 byte lines, 80 MB) text
>> file and timed "cat file" on all the boxes, with and without X. I ran 
>> the test several times and reported the fastest time. I also tried 
>> turning off anti-aliased text, but that was actually slower.
>>
>> Bottom line, FC6 running X was 6 times faster than F8 and over 8 times
>> faster than F10. I know that there have been many, many improvements in 
>> Fedora over the years, but X looks like it's taking a big step backward. 
>> And don't tell me the eye-candy is much better, because I don't care.
>>     
>
> You seem to have erroneously posted a mix of numbers mixing up version,
> kernel, X server and hardware. Unless you hold three of those constant to
> get the variation in the fourth your data is totally meaningless - even
> if there is a real slow down.
>
>   
regardless the difference between X and no X in each version/hardware is 
astounding! what are the reasons for this, your not telling me that X is 
chewing up that much cpu cycles to turn a 1minute 40sec operation into a 
4minute 53sec one?

i think this merits much further analysis!




More information about the users mailing list