Update throughput comparison table in light of latest improvements

This commit is contained in:
Kovid Goyal
2024-02-01 20:45:33 +05:30
parent 68d800d4fa
commit 2549b4328f

View File

@@ -57,18 +57,19 @@ terminal emulator you want to test, where the kitten binary is part of the
kitty install.
The numbers are megabytes per second of data that the terminal
processes. Measurements were taken under Linux/X11 with a ``AMD Ryzen 7 PRO
5850U``. Entries are in order of decreasing performance. kitty is clearly
faster than the rest.
processes. Measurements were taken under Linux/X11 with an ``AMD Ryzen 7 PRO
5850U``. Entries are in order of decreasing performance. kitty is twice
as fast as the next best.
================ ====== ======= ===== ====== =======
Terminal ASCII Unicode CSI Images Average
================ ====== ======= ===== ====== =======
kitty 0.33 88.3 74.1 41.2 235.8 109.85
kitty 0.33 117.7 104.0 59.3 249.7 132.68
alacritty 0.13.1 43.1 46.5 32.5 94.1 54.05
wezterm 20230712 16.4 26.0 11.1 140.5 48.5
xterm 389 47.7 18.3 0.6 56.3 30.72
konsole 23.08.04 25.2 37.7 23.6 23.4 27.48
alacritty+tmux 30.3 7.8 14.7 46.1 24.73
================ ====== ======= ===== ====== =======
In this table, each column represents different types of data. The CSI column
@@ -86,8 +87,11 @@ ASCII only text.
.. note::
gnome-terminal is left out as I could not get it to start on my system
and foot is left out as it does not run under X11.
gnome-terminal is left out as I could not get it to start on my system and
foot is left out as it does not run under X11. Alacritty+tmux is included
just to show the effect of putting a terminal multiplexer into the mix
(halving throughput) and because alacritty isnt really comparable to any of
the other terminals feature wise without tmux.
.. note::