Re: relative performance of different interactive terminals

[Dima K. <gn...@di...>]

Jonathan Thornburg <jt...@as...> writes:

> Dima Kogan <gn...@di...> replied
>> My only reason for sticking with x11 is performance. Last year I tried
>> wxt and qt, and they were both noticeably more sluggish. I just tried it
>> again, and while qt was very slow, wxt seemed about as fast as x11. So
>> maybe I'll jump ship too in a bit.
>
> On my computer wxt is subjectively *much* more sluggish than x11.
> I just tried a quantitative performance test (details below), and wxt
> was about a factor of 3 slower than x11 when interactively rotating
> the 'splot' of a medium-sized data file.
>
> It's interesting that the relative performance of wxt vs x11 differs
> so much from one system to another.  I don't know whether this is the
> underlying graphics hardware/acceleration, some feature(s) of the
> different X servers used by wxt vs x11, or what.
>
> It would be interesting to run such performance tests on a range of
> different systems and see how the relative performance of different
> terminals varies from one {gnuplot version, compiler, computer system}
> to another.


I just tried out your test, and I do see the wxt being slow. I retract
my statement that it seems quick-enough now. :) I see similar
differences in performance on two thinkpad laptops (integrated Intel
graphics and nvidia nvs140). Previously I used a thinkpad with a radeon
x1400 (such as what you have), and it was similarly slow.

It looks line an important factor to the slowness is the 'lines' plots.
If you change your test case to plot with points instead of lines, the
x11 becomes a LOT slower, but the wxt only somewhat so, and the two
become comparable.

dima