3 ms·
> Considering that Wayland is much more lightweight than X11 That's irrelevant. More relevant is that Wayland is adamant about presenting "perfect frames" (ie
by AceJohnny2 4y ago
> Considering that Wayland is much more lightweight than X11
That's irrelevant. More relevant is that Wayland is adamant about presenting "perfect frames" (ie no frame tearing), which requires a sync/checkpoint for everything that's displaying, which inherently puts a lower bound on latency that non-sync-respecting X11 isn't subject to.
- arghwhat 4y agoWhat's more relevant is that Wayland is adamant on ensuring that scanout is an option as often as possible, making it extremely efficient and fast to put stuff on screen. Also, every pixel has a "checkpoint" sampled at the display refresh rate. With tearing, the checkpoint of a pixel differs from its neighbors, with each subsequent pixel (leading to rolling shutter artifacts), whereas without, all pixels show the same sample. At the cost of glitches, tearing and higher render load let's you put slightly newer data in the bottom third or quarter of your screen. Not really something to write home about, especially considering that X11-users commonly run external compositors exactly to get that tear-free behavior.