I don't have another theory. I would think its the extra "free" buffer
especially with insanely high fps rates.
can we get some mobile device based numbers as well ?
br, kg
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Daniel van Vugt <
daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote:
> I'll work on getting numbers. In
I'll work on getting numbers. In the mean time, any other theories on
why nesting is sometimes faster?
I think the first logical step is to assume nesting shouldn't be faster.
But instead non-nested is being throttled somehow, like already described.
On 18/12/13 17:04, Thomas Voß wrote:
On
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Daniel van Vugt
wrote:
> The issue is in your response: "almost immediately" :)
>
> At present, "almost immediately" means waiting for a round trip. Whereas we
> can do better than that in theory, by pushing free buffers to the client as
> soon as they're availabl
The issue is in your response: "almost immediately" :)
At present, "almost immediately" means waiting for a round trip. Whereas
we can do better than that in theory, by pushing free buffers to the
client as soon as they're available.
On 18/12/13 16:58, Thomas Voß wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Daniel van Vugt
wrote:
> At first glance, comparing frame rates between direct (single) and nested
> (double) server configurations reveals nothing unexpected...
>
> Full screen
> Direct (bypass) 2600
> Direct (bypass off) 2400
> Nested (bypass) 2450
> Nested (bypa
At first glance, comparing frame rates between direct (single) and
nested (double) server configurations reveals nothing unexpected...
Full screen
Direct (bypass) 2600
Direct (bypass off) 2400
Nested (bypass) 2450
Nested (bypass off) 2330
But for surfaces which can't be bypassed, something stra
