From: Carl Worth Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:57:54 +0000 (-0700) Subject: Mention x11perf as the source for the performance measurements X-Git-Url: https://git.cworth.org/git?p=cworth.org;a=commitdiff_plain;h=056fe59d8d38ea4be1271268ac83910e675d143c Mention x11perf as the source for the performance measurements --- diff --git a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn index 29d705b..e89bdeb 100644 --- a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn +++ b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn @@ -26,8 +26,9 @@ glyph rendering). So, briefly here, I want to mention a couple of things that EXA is doing a fine job with. The first is the big reason why you don't want to run an X server with NoAccel: scrolling will hurt very badly. Take -a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a -rectangle of various sizes. +a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a rectangle of +various sizes. These results are from "x11perf -copywinwinX" and +multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation. [All tests here are with very recent checkouts of xserver, mesa, and xf86-video-intel. Tests are run on an Intel Core 2 CPU @ 2.13GHz with @@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ this test, but not significantly. Second, let's look at another common operation, filling solid rectangles. This is an essential step in almost any rending, (for clearing to the background color), as well as for actually rendering -some content. +some content. These results are from "x11perf -rectX", again +multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation. [[rectangle-fill.png]]