graphical client vs console client .

[geekcomputing]

anyone know how much % faster the console client is compared to the graphical client?

thanks,

[Geo]

Are they? I used the graphical client for years, but not as a screensaver. Using it as a screensaver might be slower when its up on the screen. Otherwise I don't see why it would be.

I switched to the console client to run two clients on a dual core CPU, as that's the only way to make that work.

[geekcomputing]

well.. the console would have to be some % faster (however small) as it does not have to draw the graphics.

[Geo]

well.. the console would have to be some % faster (however small) as it does not have to draw the graphics.


I understand. But the "graphical client" only draws the graphics when its on the screen. So if it's not on the screen very much at all, then it shouldn't have a significant impact.

This is why I didn't run it as a screensaver, so it wouldn't be on the screen much.

[caffeinated]

I understand. But the "graphical client" only draws the graphics when its on the screen. So if it's not on the screen very much at all, then it shouldn't have a significant impact.

This is why I didn't run it as a screensaver, so it wouldn't be on the screen much.

I have absolutely no scientific evidence...
...other than this:

Linux Vs. Windows

See Memory requirements:

When the OS isn't playing rob Peter to pay Paul, then there is no difference, but on a day to day basis, command prompt/console wins. If you would like a more detailed reason for this, as I said, run a strict 32-bit console/terminal client (Linux) vs. 32-bit on top of GUI. (Windows) when we can run Windows in a command prompt, I am prepared to admit defeat.

Until then, I rest my case, and I am prepared to hear further arguments. :D

[geekcomputing]

o i think linux would be fast.. as would a command line folding client vs the 'pretty' one.

im just curious how much % fast. say 1%?

[Freak'n Big Panda]

I personally doubt there is any measurable difference. <1% maybe.