Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 19:25:03

Before Crunchbang, I used Debian Testing with Mate and liked it a lot. Everything I wanted to do was done with optimal performance, but the thought of something out there being "lighter" and possibly "faster" kept nagging me. I completely disregarded the "if you're happy with what you have, don't switch" philosophy and installed Crunchbang. Crunchbang was initially everything I wanted and more, until I started playing 3D games. My FPS have dropped significantly since I moved over from Debian Testing. I started disabling things that I thought may be causing the problem like PulseAudio (I'm using Alsa on its own now) and Compositing, I think I may have changed or removed a few other things, but none of it was helping at all.

So I've come here asking for your advice. I doubt there's anything running in the background that could be making it run slower, so is it possible that Crunchbang's missing something (that is in Debian Testing by default) that's required for things like this? Or, is there actually something in the background (that isn't in Debian Testing by default) that could be slowing me down?

snowpine · 2012-10-23 19:38:35

What is your graphics hardware? That would be a good clue to begin troubleshooting your FPS issue.

If Debian with Mate is working great for you then I don't see a burning need to switch to #!.

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 19:50:18

00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 09)

Switching from Gnome3 to Mate made such a huge difference for me, I thought switching to something even lighter would be even better. When I found out #! came with some packages that made Openbox into a complete desktop environment, I figured I'd have to give it a try. And now here I am.

Edit: To put it a little better, installing #! seemed like a shortcut to achieving what I wanted in the end.

Last edited by Octoberator (2012-10-23 19:59:36)

snowpine · 2012-10-23 19:57:26

Hmm, as far as I know, the Intel driver is pre-installed and no further action on your part should be necessary to use it. If you do:

lsmod | grep video

it will show you the video driver currently in use, on my computer I get a line that looks like this:

video                  17628  1 i915

indicating the intel i915 driver is in use.

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 20:05:26

It turns out I didn't actually remove PulseAudio. I could have sworn I did. I'm going to try removing it and see how that helps.

video                  10908  1 i915

Intel's latest and greatest Linux drivers are installed with the kernel if I remember correctly. I'm currently using the latest kernel (3.6.2) so I doubt it's a driver issue.

snowpine · 2012-10-23 20:07:36

Did you try using the stable release?

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 20:10:41

Yes. I didn't like it and I think I remember it running games even worse.

Edit: I actually tried it on accident. I thought both versions were based off Debian Testing. I didn't like Debian Stable either.

Last edited by Octoberator (2012-10-23 20:11:42)

snowpine · 2012-10-23 20:12:13

Well there's no shame in using Debian if you prefer it; it is The Mothership after all. smile

snowpine · 2012-10-23 20:17:31

Octoberator wrote:

Intel's latest and greatest Linux drivers are installed with the kernel if I remember correctly. I'm currently using the latest kernel (3.6.2) so I doubt it's a driver issue.

I just noticed this. No version of #! or Debian includes/supports kernel 3.6.2. Try running the provided/supported kernel and see if that resolves your issue. smile

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 20:18:09

You're right, but if I switch back over to Debian Testing I'm probably going to end up adding everything desktop-related that comes with #!. And the way it's all configured and presented in #! is just great. I'm really hoping I can fix my problem without having to reinstall Debian Testing and adding all of this afterwards.

Edit: The 3.6.2 kernel works better with my sound card, but I'll give the 3.2 kernel another shot.

Last edited by Octoberator (2012-10-23 20:19:16)

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 20:50:02

I just noticed on the 3.6 kernel, conky only detects 2.86 GB of my 4 GB of ram. The 3.2 kernel detects 3.86 GB (I'm using 32bit so that's normal, right?). Removing PulseAudio didn't help at all. If I don't find a solution to this, I'll try reinstalling Debian Testing on a seperate partition and see if it works any better. Although me and my younger brother have noticed a decrease in gaming performance, we could be wrong about it.

I thought I remember reading somewhere that #! is built off a minimal Debian installation. Could that mean that it's missing some package that's required for what I'm doing?

snowpine · 2012-10-23 20:54:20

If you have 64-bit-capable hardware, then running the 64-bit release may give you better performance for certain tasks.

I have no experience removing Pulseaudio from #!, sorry. sad

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 21:36:05

I forgot to mention that even though the 3.2 kernel detects all of my RAM, it doesn't run the games any better. I guess I'll try Debian Testing again later.

CBizgreat! · 2012-10-23 21:40:30

Probably going to add confusion and raise more questions, than answers. Plus of course going to babble for sure.

One obvious diff in what's missing in your situation ... to me. Seems to be MATE vs openbox, yeah ALOT of stuff will get installed with MATE ( or any full blown Desktop environment) that aren't there w openbox. A DE vs WM thing, windows managers tend to be minimal affairs I think. Much less so than DE's ... has to be one of the reasons for them being "lighter". So yeppers ... is bound to be a ton of packages not installed w #! Openbox vs x install with MATE.

Am sure you get what am saying/typing. Have zero experience w MATE, gave up on De's long ago. But I don't use gnu/nix for gaming either. Everybody knows pc's are for important stuff dang it ! Like listening to tunes and watching p0rn. Gaming ... sheesh ! tongue Only messing round and trying to be funny o course.

Agree w Snowpine ... If were happy with what you were using, nothing wrong with going back to using it. You no doubt already know you can have both if ya want. Multi-boot or etc, so forth ... <Many other options goes here.> So imo, the original question ... Guess would have to say no. Lighter doesn't necessarily mean better for x application or what you want to use that OS for.

Last edited by CBizgreat! (2012-10-23 21:45:43)

Octoberator · 2012-10-23 22:16:31

One obvious diff in what's missing in your situation ... to me. Seems to be MATE vs openbox, yeah ALOT of stuff will get installed with MATE ( or any full blown Desktop environment) that aren't there w openbox. A DE vs WM thing, windows managers tend to be minimal affairs I think. Much less so than DE's ... has to be one of the reasons for them being "lighter". So yeppers ... is bound to be a ton of packages not installed w #! Openbox vs x install with MATE.

Desktop Environments, or so I thought, simply come with productivity applications. If my problem stems from a missing package, I doubt that package is supplied with Mate.

machinebacon · 2012-10-24 18:54:43

Right. MATE is not that much heavier than a standard XFCE installation. It comes with a set of applications like their pluma editor and caja or whatever their names are, but it doesn't have an impact on system responsiveness. Actually I consider MATE being one of the snappiest DEs in Linuxland.
I recommend testing different kernels or maybe systemd for a change. Run from a stick and have a try. So far, I had very good experience with siduction kernels, and they are quite up-to-date (3.6.2 right now)

VastOne · 2012-10-24 18:57:12

^ Best way to get Mate in this debian install is? smile

machinebacon · 2012-10-24 19:03:35

For Squeeze: sad pandaface
For Wheezy/Sid very officially: http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/download
No, no shameless self-promotion, dear Vasty tongue

VastOne · 2012-10-24 19:07:47

^ Thanks bacon, I will fire it up and give you a report back...

Shameless self-promotion noted... cool

el_koraco · 2012-10-24 19:12:26

Gnome will probably work fine, but you need to set:

CLUTTER_PAINT=disable-clipped-redraws:disable-culling
CLUTTER_VLANK=dri

in /etc/environment and reboot. Lighter doesn't necessarily mean faster. The full featured desktops often perform better, because the internal daemons put a lot of stuff into RAM. I mean, things are faster if you're using mostly CLI applications, but that's another issue.

VastOne · 2012-10-24 19:12:37

^^ BTW, building it to liquorix 3.6.0-3 now

BIG ... 297MB in 98 new packages... but to be expected with this magnitude of a DE

machinebacon · 2012-10-24 19:26:58

^ Sounds like the mate-desktop rather than the mate-core wink Well! The bigger the better (errrm) tongue

Octoberator · 2012-10-24 23:29:26

Lighter doesn't necessarily mean faster. The full featured desktops often perform better, because the internal daemons put a lot of stuff into RAM. I mean, things are faster if you're using mostly CLI applications, but that's another issue.

THANK YOU!! This has been bugging me so much the past few days. If this is true then I will be returning to Debain Testing with Mate. I might screw around with Open/Fluxbox again but I need to learn more about this daemon stuff first.

schwim · 2012-10-24 23:38:35

Well, now I'm confused. Is everyone that comes to the forum(myself included) enjoying the placebo effect when we state how fast our de experience is when switching from "X" distro to #! ? I used Mint with Mate mostly before my switch and let me just say that I love the Mate DE. It was stable and fast. That being said, my apps(audio, browser, ftp, audacity, vlc most commonly) start more quickly in !# than in Mint with Mate. No doubt about it.

I know that there's a lot more to a distro than just the DE(or WM), but surely some of the snappiness I'm enjoying is due to OB, no?

arclance · 2012-10-25 00:25:01

^ No I don't think there is a placebo effect.
Unless el_koraco has some examples of things that are put into ram by some DEs internal daemon with some kind of benchmarking data that backs up the speed increase doing that causes I have no reason to believe his statement to be true in the real world.
In theory he could be right but in practice I doubt that is actually the case due to the complexity and load that comes with running multiple daemons that work on a common data pool.

You also have to consider the bloat that comes with some DEs that may slow it down more than any gains you might get from doing that.

In my experience full DEs like Gnome or KDE are slower, especially on older hardware, than a WM like Openbox or Fluxbox.

I can't say anything about the relative speed of MATE since I have never used it though.

Last edited by arclance (2012-10-25 00:31:37)

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-10-23 19:25:03

Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#2 2012-10-23 19:38:35

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#3 2012-10-23 19:50:18

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#4 2012-10-23 19:57:26

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#5 2012-10-23 20:05:26

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#6 2012-10-23 20:07:36

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#7 2012-10-23 20:10:41

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#8 2012-10-23 20:12:13

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#9 2012-10-23 20:17:31

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#10 2012-10-23 20:18:09

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#11 2012-10-23 20:50:02

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#12 2012-10-23 20:54:20

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#13 2012-10-23 21:36:05

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#14 2012-10-23 21:40:30

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#15 2012-10-23 22:16:31

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#16 2012-10-24 18:54:43

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#17 2012-10-24 18:57:12

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#18 2012-10-24 19:03:35

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#19 2012-10-24 19:07:47

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#20 2012-10-24 19:12:26

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#21 2012-10-24 19:12:37

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#22 2012-10-24 19:26:58

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#23 2012-10-24 23:29:26

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#24 2012-10-24 23:38:35

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

#25 2012-10-25 00:25:01

Re: Does "lighter" necessarily mean "faster" on newer hardware?

Board footer