hutching@cs.utah.edu (Brad Hutchings) (10/20/89)
Hi,
I am trying to find out what performance I can expect from X11
on a 386 AT-clone relative to a vanilla 68020-68030 UNIX workstation
such as a SUN or an HP. *Any* opinions are welcome. I am currently
looking into the packages from Interactive and SCO. If there are
ways to improve performance, such as additional hardware or dedicated
displays, I would be interested in that as well.
Thanks,
Brad L. Hutchings
hutching@cs.utah.edukeith@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith Packard) (10/22/89)
Brad Hutchings (hutchings@cs.utah.edu) writes: > I am trying to find out what performance I can expect from X11 > on a 386 AT-clone relative to a vanilla 68020-68030 UNIX workstation > such as a SUN or an HP. *Any* opinions are welcome. This question begs some more information. It is very important for you to describe what sort of operations you will be using X for. Asking for the "best" X server is like asking for the "best" workstation. If you are interested in simple user-interface activities (solid fills, bitblt, text painting), the answers will be much different than an application mix which makes extensive use of complex graphics (wide lines, filled arcs, filled polygons). In the first case, some of the current crop of X terminals with simplistic graphics co-processing out-perform many available workstations. In the second case, a machine with additional graphics compute power (Faster general purpose CPU or possibly a more complex graphics co-processor) would be suitable. Beware of published performance numbers, they frequently talk about raw graphics performance (vectors/sec, chars/sec) and neglect to add in the overhead required to convert X requests into the low-level primitives. The best way of getting the most performance/dollar is to benchmark the actual applications you'll be using on a variety of platforms. Lacking this capability (not too many people want to port a large collection of applications), you can use a benchmark program (like x11perf) which will allow you to examine some individual aspects of the system which are applicable to you needs. A single number is never appropriate as a characteristic of system performance. Keith Packard MIT X Consortium
hutching%elan@CS.UTAH.EDU (Brad Hutchings) (10/23/89)
(Keith Packard writes:) >This question begs some more information. It is very important for you >to describe what sort of operations you will be using X for. Asking >for the "best" X server is like asking for the "best" workstation. Of course this question begs additional information. At this point in time, I have little to offer. I am in initial stages of a software effort which is only now being defined. What I do know at this point: the final application must run on Suns and 386 PC's. That was written into the contract for which I am working. >The best way of getting the most performance/dollar is to benchmark the >actual applications you'll be using on a variety of platforms. Lacking this >capability (not too many people want to port a large collection of >applications), you can use a benchmark program (like x11perf) which will >allow you to examine some individual aspects of the system which are >applicable to you needs. I can't benchmark the application because it does not exist yet. What is xperf and where can I get it? Although I agree with what you said, what you said has little to do with what I asked. I was and am interested in the experiences others have had with X on 386 platforms. I did not ask for a single number, nor am I looking for the "best" X server. Where did it say that in my original posting? I am not all that interested in any "hard" numbers regarding the performance of any specific server. I am looking for experienced users (with regard to a 386 pc) who can give their opinions. Direct experience is almost always superior to numbers listed in a slick marketing brochure. Regarding performance numbers: You're preaching to the choir. Brad L. Hutchings hutching.cs.utah.edu