Here's another benchmark, with an SDL 2D game, teeworlds, running full screen:
no wm: 220 FPS metacity --no-composite: 220 metacity --composite: 130 compiz: 218 xcompmgr: 130 compton: 129 I really think that the user's choices would be: 1) compiz, for every PC that supports it, 2) metacity --no-composite, for any PC that doesn't support compiz and that isn't able to spare 50%-80% of their FPS, 3) metacity --composite, ONLY for the minority of the PCs with graphics cards that can't run compiz and with so awesome CPUs that can spare 50-80% of their FPS. If you can find an example of such a PC, please let me know, currently I don't know of any. I do know of thousands of examples in category (2) though. Since `metacity --composite` is so much slower, affecting all apps and actions from simple drawing to scrolling to moving around windows to watching videos to game playing etc, I'd like to again ask you to consider NOT making (3) the preferred session for gnome-flashback for 16.04. I.e. gnome-flashback-compiz could be the default (proposed one), and gnome-flashback-metacity the non composited version, with the --composite option only available as a gsetting for the minority of the people that would need it. Thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157 Title: Metacity's compositing is too slow To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
