Xgl vs Xorg

[techieMoe]

Haven't tired to play any games yet, but glxgears seems to work fine, although I've heard that Direct rendering is off in xgl, and thatapparently gives lower fps :/

I'm just more worried about the overhead for the GPU of having to keep the desktop junk open while it's trying to run a 3D game. On my old PC I had to optimize performance as much as possible and I'd often use Blackbox in the background when gaming.

[Weedman]

I'm just more worried about the overhead for the GPU of having to keep the desktop junk open while it's trying to run a 3D game. On my old PC I had to optimize performance as much as possible and I'd often use Blackbox in the background when gaming.

I am hoping that they will increase the effieciency of XGL by the time it's released as a "stable" product. They couldn't leave it as it is right now. It looks good, but it's not finished.

[Zelmo]

Check out the Wiki page for XGL, and the one for AIGLX. What I got from those is that we can expect to see all of the development work from XGL move into AIGLX, which is going to ship with X.org early next year. AIGLX will allow direct access to the video hardware, giving greater efficiency and functionality; XGL, by contrast, runs on top of an existing X server and accesses the video hardware indirectly with calls to the "host" X server.

Both development teams know that AIGLX is the future of accelerated X, but a lot of the work up until now has gone into XGL because it's easier to set up and test stuff on a host X server. By the end of the year, the projects should merge, and at that point Nvidia and ATI are expected to throw their full weight behind the new technology.

[Weedman]

Thanks for clearing that up, Zelmo. Now it all makes perfect sense to me.

I was wondering there for a bit about why the hell there were 2 xgl projects going at once.