4 ms·

I see a huge difference using Kitty, it's much faster than other terminals.

• vidarh 5y ago
  Kitty is decent, and I've used it a lot, but on my system at least rxvt-unicode beats Kitty's throughput by a factor of 2. If you've got a much faster gpu maybe your mileage may vary, but I can't even tell the performance difference unless I'm timing something like catting a large file to the terminal, which isn't something I do on purpose. Currently I'm using mlterm which is slower than Kitty again by a significant margin, and I still don't notice the difference in day to day use. (xterm, st and gnome-terminal are all slower than Kitty by huge margins; of the terminals on my system (I have a lot because I tested a bunch of them a while back...) there's a performance difference in terms of rendering throughput of at least a factor of 10, and yet even the slowest once are perfectly fine for most use other than the cat large file test)
  • anthk 5y ago
    This. Since XV days, X's 2D rendering has been accelerated by GPU's.
    • vidarh 5y ago
      You don't even need 2D acceleration for this beyond maybe a basic region blit. Ever since the Amiga days text rendering at sufficient speed to bitmap displays has been a solved problem, with only scrolling accelerated by the blitter, and resolution and number of bits per pixel has increased at a much slower pace than CPU performance since then. Most X terminals use one of ~3 different basic approaches to glyph rendering anyway (as shown by redirecting them through xtruss to log the X requests they make), and their throughput still varies from far faster than Kitty (as per rxvt) to far slower, so apart from possibly the fastest ones, most of the x terminals spends most of their time outside of their rendering code.
    • dahart 5y ago
      Xv doesn’t do any rendering, though, right? It displays video. It can’t be used to implement a text editor’s rendering engine.