3 ms·

Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else? :) Wayla

Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else? :) Wayland makes lots of things possible: multi-monitor HiDPI, touchpad gestures like pinch to zoom (just like Macs could do ages ago), touchscreen support that's actually independent of the mouse pointer instead of always dragging it along… and there's finally no goddamn screen tearing. Every frame is perfect™.

sprash 8y ago
> Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else? Might be true, never happened to me. But what about FPS in Games. X11 beats it there for me. Or what about in the most important metric of them all: Latency. In all my Tests Latncy on Wayland is always a regression, compared to X11. (I use Intel and HDxxxx era AMD Graphics, can not say anything about Nvidia) > Wayland makes lots of things possible That might be true. But X11 can be extended and has been extended very often (hence the messy code). One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland. > Every frame is perfect™ To me far less important than latency. Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. When I type on the terminal I want my characters appear instantly, then I don't care about tearing at all.
- zaarn 8y ago
  > Latency. On my own testing (GNOME, latest Kernel, as well as Sway temporarily) latency and FPS were better on Wayland than X11 (though only on my beefier graphics card, windows rendered on the second one had higher latency and comparatively lower FPS than expected. But I don't game on that card. >One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland. Correct because Wayland isn't a network-like protocol as X is (though I've had X network passthrough break or fill up a gigabit ethernet connection worth of bandwidth on more than one occasion). If you want remote desktop on Wayland, you need a tool specifically designed for that. It's the unix mindset after all; why have one tool (X) do everything when you can have lots of tools interact and each solves it's own little problems (Wayland + tools)? >Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. If you run a game on wayland you usually get control over the screen anyway when you go fullscreen, once you have exclusive control you can go tearing all you want. Though with adaptive sync becoming more common (and already being common on laptops) the perfect frame is less costly than tearing; the display will run at the FPS you can manage (within bounds). For it to work you only need to VSync and the GPU driver handles the rest. In my experience, Wayland has way better and smoother performance than X on adaptive sync displays.
stcredzero 8y ago
Every frame is perfect™ Every frame is great. If a frame is missing, ### gets quite irate.

sprash 8y ago

> Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else? Might be true, never happened to me. But what about FPS in Games. X11 beats it there for me. Or what about in the most important metric of them all: Latency. In all my Tests Latncy on Wayland is always a regression, compared to X11. (I use Intel and HDxxxx era AMD Graphics, can not say anything about Nvidia) > Wayland makes lots of things possible That might be true. But X11 can be extended and has been extended very often (hence the messy code). One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland. > Every frame is perfect™ To me far less important than latency. Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. When I type on the terminal I want my characters appear instantly, then I don't care about tearing at all.

zaarn 8y ago
> Latency. On my own testing (GNOME, latest Kernel, as well as Sway temporarily) latency and FPS were better on Wayland than X11 (though only on my beefier graphics card, windows rendered on the second one had higher latency and comparatively lower FPS than expected. But I don't game on that card. >One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland. Correct because Wayland isn't a network-like protocol as X is (though I've had X network passthrough break or fill up a gigabit ethernet connection worth of bandwidth on more than one occasion). If you want remote desktop on Wayland, you need a tool specifically designed for that. It's the unix mindset after all; why have one tool (X) do everything when you can have lots of tools interact and each solves it's own little problems (Wayland + tools)? >Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. If you run a game on wayland you usually get control over the screen anyway when you go fullscreen, once you have exclusive control you can go tearing all you want. Though with adaptive sync becoming more common (and already being common on laptops) the perfect frame is less costly than tearing; the display will run at the FPS you can manage (within bounds). For it to work you only need to VSync and the GPU driver handles the rest. In my experience, Wayland has way better and smoother performance than X on adaptive sync displays.

stcredzero 8y ago

Every frame is perfect™ Every frame is great. If a frame is missing, ### gets quite irate.