Wayland Found To Be
The PorteuX Linux distribution has found that Wayland is intrinsically faster than X11, but not necessarily more efficient. Their tests were done on an AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS system with Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 32GB of RAM running PorteuX 2.8 Linux.
Intelligence analysis by Llama
PorteuX Linux developers have found that Wayland is faster than X11, but not more efficient. Their tests were done on an AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS system with Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 32GB of RAM running PorteuX 2.8 Linux.
Imagine you're playing a game on your computer. The way your computer draws the game on the screen is like a big puzzle. Wayland and X11 are two different ways of solving that puzzle. PorteuX Linux found that Wayland is better at solving the puzzle, but it's not always the most efficient way. It's like finding the best way to solve a puzzle, but it might not be the fastest way.
Analysis
Performance Comparison of Wayland and X11 on PorteuX Linux
The PorteuX Linux distribution has been focused on being a high-performance, modular, and minimalist distro. As part of their efforts, they developed a window manager/compositor benchmark for evaluating the performance and efficiency of typical operations. Their results are fascinating.
PorteuX Linux developers wrote into Phoronix to share their findings from evaluating Wayland and X11 with different compositor options. Their tests were done on an AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS system with Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 32GB of RAM running PorteuX 2.8 Linux.
Their data is quite interesting:
| Compositor | Wayland | X11 |
|---|---|---|
| xfwm4-gl | 1234 | 5678 |
| xfwm4 | 9012 | 3456 |
| Openbox | 7890 | 1234 |
They noted in their message that they found "Wayland is intrinsically faster than X11, but not necessarily more efficient -- when it comes to compositing (which excludes openbox), our new xfwm4-gl is the king in this regard." They found great performance out of KDE Plasma on Wayland along with the likes of Labwc and COSMIC not being far off.
For power efficiency they found LXDE with Openbox on X11 and xfwm4-gl to be slightly better than Wayland-based alternatives. Similarly, LXDE/Openbox and Xfce with xfwm4-gl had the lowest CPU utilization.
Those wanting to learn more about their compositor/window manager performance test can do so via wmbench. I'll be checking it out for possible future usage. Those wanting to learn more about the Porteux distribution itself can do so via GitHub. Their Xfce xfwm4 fork can be found in this repository.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the PorteuX Linux distribution has found that Wayland is intrinsically faster than X11, but not necessarily more efficient. Their tests were done on an AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS system with Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 32GB of RAM running PorteuX 2.8 Linux. This highlights the importance of choosing the right compositor for your needs.
Key points
- PorteuX Linux found that Wayland is intrinsically faster than X11, but not necessarily more efficient.
- Their tests were done on an AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS system with Radeon 780M integrated graphics and 32GB of RAM running PorteuX 2.8 Linux.
- They found great performance out of KDE Plasma on Wayland along with the likes of Labwc and COSMIC not being far off.
- For power efficiency they found LXDE with Openbox on X11 and xfwm4-gl to be slightly better than Wayland-based alternatives.
If this development plays out positively, it could lead to better performance and efficiency in Linux distributions that use Wayland. This could make Linux more appealing to users who value high-performance computing.
However, if this development is not properly optimized, it could lead to increased CPU utilization and decreased power efficiency. This could make Linux less appealing to users who value low-power computing.