I don’t think he should have included the starting frame-- if the cursor were theoretically instant, his method records it with a 1 frame delay, and this +1 frame error happens on every test. Correcting this actually makes Wayland more laggy proportionally, although it makes both less laggy absolutely.
You must log in or # to comment.
What I’ve noticed with Wayland in Plasma is that it’s very much tied to my monitors refresh rate.
At 240Hz, with adaptive sync turned off or to Automatic, I get a very responsive cursor.
At 75Hz, or if I force adaptive sync to be on at all times (instead of off or Automatic), then I get a noticeable mouse latency
Latency raw data :
Gnome Variant Δ camera frames Average (Δ) Δ milli seconds Δ monitor refreshes X11 5 4 3 4 5 4 6 5 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4.00 16.7 2.4 Wayland 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 4 8 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5.5625 23.2 3.3 Δ(Δ) - - ~1.5 ~6.5 ~1.0 instead of calculating the average one could decide to drop the data points that are way outside of their goups.
Doing so, in the first group I would neglect the value of Δ = 1 or 6 frame and in the second group I would neglect the value of 4 or 8 framesResults :
X11 : from 3 to 5 frames
Wayland : from 5 to 6 frames
Δ(Δ) = 5.5 - 4 = 1.5Still it doesn’t change the final result that the difference between these two Gnome versions is 1.5 camera frames at 240 frames per second.
Good analysis
Thanks. Also, after a bit of thought, i do believe you are right saying that we should remove one frame of all the raw camera data. … it will, as you say, decrease the absolute values and make Wayland more laggy proportionally, yet, it doesn’t change the absolute difference.
I saw some cheap laptops with Ubuntu in a local mall and on them the latency on Wayland was unbearable.
