3 ms·
You want better benchmarks look at the ones delivered bya ctual terminal developers, for example: https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/performance/#throughput https:
by aumerle 2y ago
You want better benchmarks look at the ones delivered bya ctual terminal developers, for example:
https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/performance/#throughput https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/performance/#throughput
or
https://github.com/alacritty/vtebench/tree/master https://github.com/alacritty/vtebench/tree/master
- michaelt 2y agoThose tend to say things like "This benchmark is not sufficient to get a general understanding of the performance of a terminal emulator. It lacks support for critical factors like frame rate or latency. The only factor this benchmark stresses is the speed at which a terminal reads from the PTY." So although those tests may be more extensive, they're not "better" in every regard. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to want a benchmark that people can run without needing to build any custom hardware.
- aumerle 2y agoThey are better in every regard compared to catting a large file, which is what the OP was complaining about. Certainly if you want to comprehensively understand terminal emulator performance there are multiple axes along which to measur eit and various tradeoffs involved. But I think nowadays we have much better alternatives to catting large files or running find / both of which have been the go to for measuring terminal performance for most people.