3 ms·
> Rustdesk is considerably more performant than the VNC family It consumes, on the client, 800%-1200% CPU AND 8%-10% GPU decode on my NVIDIA card. I opened a b
by shock 2mo ago
> Rustdesk is considerably more performant than the VNC family
It consumes, on the client, 800%-1200% CPU AND 8%-10% GPU decode on my NVIDIA card. I opened a bug and they transformed it into a discussion, without any response.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> they transformed it into a discussion, without any response How dare they.
- LoganDark 2mo agoPerformant does not mean it uses less resources, it means it makes better use of the resources
- anakaine 2mo agoBetter is subjective. What is the bottleneck or resource allocation you're trying to overcome? Going on what the poster above says about CPU and memory - if the network speed or bandwidth allocation is the bottleneck, then trading CPU and memory utilisation increases for lower bandwidth is likely acceptable. If, however, the device is low end and tying up memory and CPU with compression would lead to sluggish or impaired task performance but the network has adequate overhead for lower levels of compression or higher levels of data transfer then higher network utilisation would be preferable. Different tools, different use case scenarios.
- shock 2mo agoPlease detail in what ways rustdesk "makes better use of the resources", so as to conclude that it is more performant. I'm curious to understand your perspective, since mine is very different.
- LoganDark 2mo agoI honestly don't have the experience to speak on whether it's actually more performant or not, since I don't trust networked screen sharing (I use a wired capture card exclusively). The only time I ever use networked remote desktop is when I can't be bothered to hook up the cables, or when I'm not physically close to the machine. However, I would say that high CPU or GPU usage is not necessarily an indicator of bad performance, especially since higher utilization can mean better performance.