undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalokedesai4y ago0 comments

Good question! We did an initial benchmark of scrolling back in July against Terminal, iTerm, Hyper, Kitty, and Alacritty, if you’re interested: https://www.warp.dev/blog/how-warp-works.

We started by forking Alacritty's model and parser and because we have a similar architecture (Rust-based, rendered on the GPU) we should generally be at, or near, the performance of Alacritty.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

monkeytaco4y ago

I just ran a quick test using Casey Muratori's termbench (https://github.com/cmuratori/termbench) you are an order of magnitude slower than Alacritty, and also significantly slower than iTerm. Warp also locks up pretty severely and only shows a new frame once every few seconds during most of the run.

Alacritty

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9880H CPU @ 2.30GHz

VT support: no

ManyLine: 1.5670s (0.0399gb/s)

LongLine: 1.1261s (0.0555gb/s)

FGPerChar: 0.3293s (0.0551gb/s)

FGBGPerChar: 0.6598s (0.0534gb/s)

TermMarkV2 Small: 3.6822s (0.0484gb/s)

iTerm

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9880H CPU @ 2.30GHz

VT support: no

ManyLine: 13.2968s (0.0047gb/s)

LongLine: 3.6535s (0.0171gb/s)

FGPerChar: 1.8944s (0.0096gb/s)

FGBGPerChar: 2.8304s (0.0125gb/s)

TermMarkV2 Small: 21.6750s (0.0082gb/s)

Warp

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9880H CPU @ 2.30GHz

VT support: no

ManyLine: 9.6199s (0.0065gb/s)

LongLine: 8.3727s (0.0075gb/s)

FGPerChar: 8.1124s (0.0022gb/s)

FGBGPerChar: 6.0873s (0.0058gb/s)

TermMarkV2 Small: 32.1924s (0.0055gb/s)

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse