Gianvito’s

February 20, 2008

Gtk Engines Benchmarks - What’s the fastest?

Filed under: archlinux, linux, themes — Tags: , , — gianvito @ 10:25 pm

Final Chart (not sorted for a better results view):

generalbenchessss

Fastest: Bluecurve —-> 6.11 secs

Slowest: Aurora ——> 18.95 secs

If you had other great engines… just comment it and i’ll update benchs. :)

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

27 Comments »

  1. What about the Xfce-gtk-engine?

    Comment by dosnlinux — February 21, 2008 @ 2:24 am

  2. Ok… I will try as soon as possible to add xfce gtk engines…

    Comment by gianvito — February 21, 2008 @ 11:11 am

  3. Updated with xfce engines

    Comment by gianvito — February 21, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

  4. Nodoka is almost murrine engine with a different name (Nodoka), its performance are nearly the same.
    If you chose a Murrine theme with rounded borders, you’ll see it.

    By the way, the problem is not on +1second, -1second etc etc… the thing is that Aurora, for example, is exactly twice slower than murrine with small roudness :)
    This will be noticeable when using many windows.

    Comment by Cimi — February 23, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

  5. Talking about nodoka… i added it to the test because it is part of Fedora… I wanted to give a general purpose to the test…
    However… We all know Murrine is a great engine… It combines beauty and speed together :)…
    Aurora is handsome to see… but it has to do more if it wants to be a very usable engine… especially on old machines

    Comment by gianvito — February 23, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  6. [...] chosen the first one… (MOTIVATIONS) It’s name is [...]

    Pingback by Relaxing Wallpaper with a comfortable gtk engine :) « Gianvito’s — February 23, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

  7. [...] de desempenho em engines GTK “Acabei de ler no planeta do arch linux um tópico sobre a performance de engines e temas para gtk através da ferramenta gtkpref (até então [...]

    Pingback by Teste de desempenho em engines GTK — February 26, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

  8. What about rezlooks gtl-engine???

    Comment by pibarnas — February 26, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

  9. @pibarnas
    Updated with rezlooks engine

    Comment by gianvito — February 26, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

  10. [...] FONTE Leave a Comment [...]

    Pingback by N3RD3X Idéias Livres » Blog Archive » Gráfico sobre o desempenho das engines em GTK — February 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

  11. Here’s some more. http://art.gnome.org/themes/gtk_engines/

    You got most of them, but I think you’re missing eXperience-engine, and gtk-industrial-engine. There may be others.

    Comment by dosnlinux — February 27, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

  12. Updated with experience & industrial engines

    Comment by gianvito — February 28, 2008 @ 12:13 am

  13. this is an interesting benchmark, however when it comes to gtk-engines I’m all about stability. I have seen so many engines causing crashes of applications in weird spots. In many cases these engines use cairo_* function calls, where as engines with native gtk calls like xfce seem to be less error prone. I don’t blame it on the engine entirely, in many cases that might be caused by some intercation of libraries. So I’m surprised to see that xfce engine is actually that fast because it is also very very stable! I say that out of the experience of closing bugs in ArchLinux with: “Use another gtk engine and you’ll be fine.”

    Comment by neri — March 2, 2008 @ 5:37 am

  14. No wonder why the Xfce Engines yield all the same results; (a nanosecond here and there is in the area of statistical error) They are different colour schemes for the same engine (gtk-xfce-engine).

    So you could just leave all but one out and spare a whole page from the article :)

    Comment by stavrosg — March 5, 2008 @ 11:55 am

  15. (Whoops… I was looking at the tests visible on the window, and not the total time)
    Interesting how different colours & sprites affect performance.

    Can you please add charts for each individual test?
    Or just a csv file with the data would do, too.

    Regards

    Comment by stavrosg — March 5, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

  16. @stavrosg
    Hi,
    Excuse me I didn’t understood what you want to say…
    What do I have to add to the chart to every individual engine test?

    Comment by gianvito — March 5, 2008 @ 2:19 pm

  17. Post updated

    Nodoka —–> 0.6.99.1-1
    Added charts to gtk-engines and xfce-gtk-engines pages

    Comment by gianvito — March 10, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

  18. [...] wirtualna dusza wzięła ten temat całkiem niedawno na warsztat. Bez zbędnych ceregieli wykonała testy, których wynik poniżej prezentuję. Napomknę jeszcze, jakiego sprzętu używał testujący: * [...]

    Pingback by .:Pixels not found:. » Najszybsze GTK2 na świecie — March 28, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

  19. [...] blogu Gianvito’s pojawiły się ostatnio ciekawe wyniki benchmarku różnych silników GTK2, wykonane przy pomocy [...]

    Pingback by odcinek.blag » wydajne GTK2? — March 28, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

  20. How about testing QtCurve for GTK? I’ve found this engine to be extremely fast, on par with Simple and Mist!

    Comment by Chris — April 30, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

  21. Post updated

    Nodoka —-> 0.7 version
    Added QtCurve (@Chris)

    Comment by gianvito — April 30, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

  22. thnx man..
    this is very usefull

    Comment by anung — May 20, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

  23. Why not 1) sort the graph by time (it doesn’t seem to be sorted at all right now) and 2) label each bar with number of seconds? I’m not sure what software you’re using, but it ought to be feasible.

    Comment by Iain — May 29, 2008 @ 1:00 am

  24. Hi gianvito,

    you should test the Bluecurve engine. Fastest on my system (Q9450).

    Urfe

    Comment by urfe — May 31, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

  25. You should do the following test: modify the Nodoka engine, find the definition (’engine “nodoka”‘) and replace it with something like this:

    engine “nodoka”
    {
    animation = FALSE
    contrast = 1.0
    gradients = FALSE
    listviewheaderstyle = 0
    listviewstyle = 1
    menubarstyle = 0
    roundness = 0
    scrollbarstyle = 2
    stripes = FALSE
    }

    I get 5.3 sec. after the modifications (removing gradients and setting the roundness of the buttons to 0 (none)), 10.8 before.

    The roundness of the buttons is the key performance factor in this tests.

    Comment by urfe — May 31, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

  26. And MythBuntu engine?

    Comment by Anonim Anonimatuum — June 28, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

  27. Post updated (sorry for the long time i’ve missed here)

    Comment by gianvito — July 12, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.