Mailinglist Archive: radeonhd (427 mails)

[Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Matthias Hopf <mhopf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 07, 09 11:09:33 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Matthias Hopf <mhopf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On May 06, 09 17:26:11 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Yang Zhao <yang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Now that DRI is on by default on r5xx, we might as well set EXA as
> > > > > default instead of XAA.
> > >
> > > What is the performance of EXA vs. XAA, what are the benefits?
> >
> > For most modern desktops, EXA should be faster.  It accelerates
>
> The issue is - as in most cases - that it "should be" is not necessarily
> "is" :-P
>
> > not currently implemented.  Additionally, only EXA supports
> > accelerated render transforms which means only EXA provides
> > accelerated screen rotation.
>
> That's a good point. Even though rotation isn't widely used.
>
> > > E.g. for the intel driver both EXA and UXA are currently extremely slow
> > > compared to XAA (which is no longer officially supported), which is
> > > giving us quite some headaches here at SuSE.
> >
> > EXA performance has improved significantly in the few xserver releases
> > due to improvements in the core EXA code.  Newer versions of KDE use
>
> I'm talking about upstream current git, xserver and driver.
> UXA, DRI2, GEM, and KMS enabled.
> The intel driver performance is abominable at the moment.
>
> Before switching I just want to hear from real life users that this is
> actually working well. Otherwise no objections.

FWIW, I've been using EXA for over a year now, and at least for me, it
performs much better than XAA for what I do (mostly coding and web
browsing).

Alex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx