You are not logged in.

#1 2013-03-03 13:40:24

Gullible Jones
Member
Registered: 2004-12-29
Posts: 4,863

XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

When you have the time, try this:

1. Download and untar the latest Openbox sources

2. Configure with --disable-xsync, compile and install

3. Replace your current window manager with it

Does it seem noticeably faster?

I especially encourage KDE users to try this, by temporarily substituting XSync-less Openbox for KWin. ('openbox --replace' while logged into KDE.)

(KWin can also probably be compiled less XSync support, but that would likely be a pain. The point here is to compare a WM that uses XSync to one that doesn't.)

Last edited by Gullible Jones (2013-03-03 15:07:12)

Offline

#2 2013-03-03 21:45:04

alexanderthegre
Member
Registered: 2012-07-29
Posts: 66

Re: XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

Hm. That's interresting. It does seem a little faster (compared to openbox with XSync), but it might be the placebo effect-- my passive CPU usage does seem a little lower, though.

Keep in mind that when comparing it to KWin, openbox will seem considerably faster, simply because it's more lightweight.

Offline

#3 2013-03-03 22:32:20

Gullible Jones
Member
Registered: 2004-12-29
Posts: 4,863

Re: XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

alexanderthegre wrote:

Hm. That's interresting. It does seem a little faster (compared to openbox with XSync), but it might be the placebo effect-- my passive CPU usage does seem a little lower, though.

CPU use should actually be a little higher when resizing a window without XSync, since window contents have to refresh more. That's my experience anyway. Idle CPU I'm not sure about.

OTOH I find that the desktop feels more responsive without XSync. It's probably all illusory - window frames move and appear faster since they don't have to wait for window contents, etc. - but it still makes quite a difference, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Keep in mind that when comparing it to KWin, openbox will seem considerably faster, simply because it's more lightweight.

True; though I've experimented with KDE and Openbox with XSync, and it felt slower than this.

Offline

#4 2013-03-04 18:55:29

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 844

Re: XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

I tried this. It seems a bit faster although it's hard to compare.

What I think I noticed is when I start chromium, without the tweak the screen would draw the top half then the bottom half in 10ms or so. Now it seems to appear on the whole screen at once.


pie!

Offline

#5 2013-03-04 23:43:16

Gullible Jones
Member
Registered: 2004-12-29
Posts: 4,863

Re: XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

Hmm, I don't notice that. Not sure why that would happen, either. What sort of video card do you have?

Offline

#6 2013-03-05 21:02:53

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 844

Re: XSync and (apparent?) desktop responsiveness

Gullible Jones wrote:

Hmm, I don't notice that. Not sure why that would happen, either. What sort of video card do you have?

NVIDIA. I tried to compare it again today, now I'm not sure if there is any difference at all. Could have been placebo effect.


pie!

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB