4 ms·

>Test Setup # >I did all tests on this system: > Lenovo Legion 7 Gen 7 AMD with Ryzen 7 6800H CPU and Radeon RX 6700M dGPU (using the dGPU exclusively via

>Test Setup # >I did all tests on this system: > Lenovo Legion 7 Gen 7 AMD with Ryzen 7 6800H CPU and Radeon RX 6700M dGPU (using the dGPU exclusively via the MUX switch). > Monitor: Acer Nitro XV320QU, 2560×1440, 144 Hz, using 100% scale. OK you can send these tests to the trashbin as this is so unrepresentative of what most users are using. This is sometimes infuriating. A year ago, I installed linux on my partner's computer, her HDD running windows had died. Things were seemingly working fine until I realized some apps (dnfdragora comes to mind) were unusable on her 1366x768 with 1.x ratio as they take way too much screen estate. I think worldwide there are still more than 20% of desktop users using screen resolutions with less than 768px of height and around 50% of user with less than 900px of height. I have not issue developpers using decent machines to develop, but when it comes to testing performance and usability they should also do it on that +10y old entry level laptop they probably still have sitting somewhere in a storage area. Or buy an old netbook for 20 bucks for that specific use.

moooo99 3y ago
I suppose someone who is running a ten year old system doesn’t tend to care too much about the input latency of their terminal emulator?
- prmoustache 3y ago
  It is about testing in general. Also you never know, one patch that improve perf on latest gen systems might do the opposite on much more humble ones which still represent a sizable portion of the computer running today. It is important to know what you are gaining (or not) and where. And I don't agree about your initial premise. The fact one is running an old system that might be super slow on most js hungry websites, playing AAA ganes or compressing 4k videos doesn't mean slowness has to be expected on native and/or small or simple apps. Also, while we can expect an old computer to be slow at things it wasn't designed for like decompressing/compressing videos with much higher bitrate/resolutions, handling traffic with more cpu intensive encryption algorithm, we should not accept a computer being slower at things it was designed for and was working well a decade ago. My motorbike is probably marginally slower from wear and tear of its engine, yet still goes like stink at the green light and has no issue reaching the speed limits. My well maintain 35y old bicycle is still as fast as it ever was, even probably faster thanks to better tires. My oven and gas stoves are still heating my meal the same way it did before. Why should an old computer be slower at doing the same things? This is a disgrace and the whole IT industry should be ashamed of accepting and enabling this.
  - lmz 3y ago
    If you want it to "do the same things" you can still do that. Go run the same software from that time then.
  - moooo99 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. I just hate the overall sentiment Here we have a person who ... observed an interesting change in a open source project ... built out a tool to carry out his own testing ' ... shared the firmware for set tool ... ran some benchmarks and visualized the data ... took the time to write an informative article outlining the though process, motivation and sharing the results And your comment essentially came down to > "Testing methodology bad, not representative of your personal usecase, should have been done different, data is trash" I think its incredibly rude and a steep ask to expect benchmarking to be done on a meaningful set of legacy hardware. Sure, legacy systems are a non insignificant portion of computers operating today. But the author used a system he had available and showed the results gathered. I'm sure his time is better spent on other projects or another blog article rather than benchmarking the same stuff on the n-th processor generation. The Linux community can be accused of many things, not caring about performance certainly isn't one of those. The beauty is, if you deeply care about a specific configuration that you feel like is being neglected, you can step up and take over some optimization efforts. If you don't care enough about that scenario, why should anybody else? Limiting this to that specific instance: the hardware is affordable to maintain, the firmware is linked. If you want to benchmark a different system of yours, go for it an publish an article. I'm gonna read it
- sunshowers 3y ago
  A ten year old system is a Core 4xxx or 5xxx series, which is plenty fast. The main struggle would be the integrated GPU at higher resolutions, but presumably a 10 year old laptop has a pretty low resolution.
erremerre 3y ago
You are getting downvoted, potentially by your tone, but you raise a very important point. I am still using an i7 of third generation with a nvidia 1050 and 16gb of ram. It moves windows 10 perfectly, and I have been able to play dota2 at medium graphic, and several games, such as the mass effect, bioshock, etc... I can edit video using old software with no problem, however attempt to do it in davinci is impossible. There are other software that is painfully slow on my machine. Also desktop resolution sucks, a lot laptops do not have anything over 1080p or even home monitors, where 1440p should be the norm.
- coffeeling 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm still on a 1080p monitor as my main one. I don't think any of my laptops have screens where 100% or 200% scaling is the correct choice, either, unless you're DHH level obsessed with font rendering.
lonelyasacloud 3y ago
Was a ticket logged for the issue?
- prmoustache 3y ago
  I found that there was one logged already several years before.
EraYaN 3y ago
On the other hand because the benchmark is comparative, it doesn't really matter what hardware it's run on. So they might as well just run it on decently recent hardware. The person on that 10y old laptop is going to have a bad experience anyway, it's just not very relevant for the actual comparison.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  A bad experience running a terminal? In which world are you living in?
sophacles 3y ago
I don't get why: 1. Random gui apps have anything at all to do with terminal emulators. Did the terminal emulator on your partner's system display any of the problems you're complaining about? 2. Resolution issues have anything to do with performance testing - those are different. 3. You think you get to demand anything of developers making something in their free time and giving it away. If they don't want to cater to you, they don't have to - there's no contractual, employment, or other obligation. You can choose to be useful and fix it yourself (or pay someone to), until then you are no different than any random ms employee thinking that ffmpeg gives a shit about teams.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  1) My remark is not specific to this particular test but more general. The fact he used a relatively high end machine which is not representative of what most people are using. If we are talking about optimization, this is important. 2) yup in this case usability, see comment above. 3) I am not demanding, I am giving my opinion on what should be done to make better software. If some developers prefer to gatekeep, wallow in mediocrity, they are free to do so as much as I am free to use other pieces of software, write my own at my own level of quality and as much as you are free to wipe your ass with my comments in a piece of paper.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
lupusreal 3y ago
For testing usability, you are right. For testing performance of terminal emulators, you're wrong. A very large resolution should make the differences easier to measure. On smaller screens they should all perform closer to perfect, the difference between them will be smaller and your reason to care about these results will also be diminished. Basically, it doesn't matter.

moooo99 3y ago

I suppose someone who is running a ten year old system doesn’t tend to care too much about the input latency of their terminal emulator?

prmoustache 3y ago
It is about testing in general. Also you never know, one patch that improve perf on latest gen systems might do the opposite on much more humble ones which still represent a sizable portion of the computer running today. It is important to know what you are gaining (or not) and where. And I don't agree about your initial premise. The fact one is running an old system that might be super slow on most js hungry websites, playing AAA ganes or compressing 4k videos doesn't mean slowness has to be expected on native and/or small or simple apps. Also, while we can expect an old computer to be slow at things it wasn't designed for like decompressing/compressing videos with much higher bitrate/resolutions, handling traffic with more cpu intensive encryption algorithm, we should not accept a computer being slower at things it was designed for and was working well a decade ago. My motorbike is probably marginally slower from wear and tear of its engine, yet still goes like stink at the green light and has no issue reaching the speed limits. My well maintain 35y old bicycle is still as fast as it ever was, even probably faster thanks to better tires. My oven and gas stoves are still heating my meal the same way it did before. Why should an old computer be slower at doing the same things? This is a disgrace and the whole IT industry should be ashamed of accepting and enabling this.
- lmz 3y ago
  If you want it to "do the same things" you can still do that. Go run the same software from that time then.
- moooo99 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. I just hate the overall sentiment Here we have a person who ... observed an interesting change in a open source project ... built out a tool to carry out his own testing ' ... shared the firmware for set tool ... ran some benchmarks and visualized the data ... took the time to write an informative article outlining the though process, motivation and sharing the results And your comment essentially came down to > "Testing methodology bad, not representative of your personal usecase, should have been done different, data is trash" I think its incredibly rude and a steep ask to expect benchmarking to be done on a meaningful set of legacy hardware. Sure, legacy systems are a non insignificant portion of computers operating today. But the author used a system he had available and showed the results gathered. I'm sure his time is better spent on other projects or another blog article rather than benchmarking the same stuff on the n-th processor generation. The Linux community can be accused of many things, not caring about performance certainly isn't one of those. The beauty is, if you deeply care about a specific configuration that you feel like is being neglected, you can step up and take over some optimization efforts. If you don't care enough about that scenario, why should anybody else? Limiting this to that specific instance: the hardware is affordable to maintain, the firmware is linked. If you want to benchmark a different system of yours, go for it an publish an article. I'm gonna read it
sunshowers 3y ago
A ten year old system is a Core 4xxx or 5xxx series, which is plenty fast. The main struggle would be the integrated GPU at higher resolutions, but presumably a 10 year old laptop has a pretty low resolution.

erremerre 3y ago

You are getting downvoted, potentially by your tone, but you raise a very important point. I am still using an i7 of third generation with a nvidia 1050 and 16gb of ram. It moves windows 10 perfectly, and I have been able to play dota2 at medium graphic, and several games, such as the mass effect, bioshock, etc... I can edit video using old software with no problem, however attempt to do it in davinci is impossible. There are other software that is painfully slow on my machine. Also desktop resolution sucks, a lot laptops do not have anything over 1080p or even home monitors, where 1440p should be the norm.

coffeeling 3y ago
Yeah, I'm still on a 1080p monitor as my main one. I don't think any of my laptops have screens where 100% or 200% scaling is the correct choice, either, unless you're DHH level obsessed with font rendering.

lonelyasacloud 3y ago

Was a ticket logged for the issue?

prmoustache 3y ago
I found that there was one logged already several years before.

EraYaN 3y ago

On the other hand because the benchmark is comparative, it doesn't really matter what hardware it's run on. So they might as well just run it on decently recent hardware. The person on that 10y old laptop is going to have a bad experience anyway, it's just not very relevant for the actual comparison.

prmoustache 3y ago
A bad experience running a terminal? In which world are you living in?

sophacles 3y ago

I don't get why: 1. Random gui apps have anything at all to do with terminal emulators. Did the terminal emulator on your partner's system display any of the problems you're complaining about? 2. Resolution issues have anything to do with performance testing - those are different. 3. You think you get to demand anything of developers making something in their free time and giving it away. If they don't want to cater to you, they don't have to - there's no contractual, employment, or other obligation. You can choose to be useful and fix it yourself (or pay someone to), until then you are no different than any random ms employee thinking that ffmpeg gives a shit about teams.

prmoustache 3y ago
1) My remark is not specific to this particular test but more general. The fact he used a relatively high end machine which is not representative of what most people are using. If we are talking about optimization, this is important. 2) yup in this case usability, see comment above. 3) I am not demanding, I am giving my opinion on what should be done to make better software. If some developers prefer to gatekeep, wallow in mediocrity, they are free to do so as much as I am free to use other pieces of software, write my own at my own level of quality and as much as you are free to wipe your ass with my comments in a piece of paper.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

lupusreal 3y ago

For testing usability, you are right. For testing performance of terminal emulators, you're wrong. A very large resolution should make the differences easier to measure. On smaller screens they should all perform closer to perfect, the difference between them will be smaller and your reason to care about these results will also be diminished. Basically, it doesn't matter.