Advanced

The Cost Of Running Compiz

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 2 comments
Phoronix; By Michael Larabel 		Mail this story
Print this story

Earlier this week we published benchmarks comparing Arch Linux and Ubuntu. There were only a few areas where the two Linux distributions actually performed differently with many of their core packages being similar, but one of the areas where the results were vastly different was with the OpenGL performance as Ubuntu uses Compiz by default (when a supported GPU driver is detected) where as Arch does not. This had surprised many within our forums so we decided to carry out a number of tests with different hardware and drivers to show off what the real performance cost is of running Compiz as a desktop compositing manager in different configurations.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: News Story; Groups: Linux, Ubuntu

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

Comments (2)

bigg ·
Quoting:Ubuntu uses Compiz by default (when a supported GPU driver is detected) where as Arch does not


There's no such thing as an Arch "default". Every installation has the same small set of base packages. Then you install what you want on top of it. Arch makes no decisions for the user. Along the same lines, we could say that Arch is faster at certain tasks because Ubuntu includes X by default and Arch does not.
herzeleid ·
Perhaps you'd better go straighten out the technical staff at phoronix then?

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post