Fastest rendering fonts in gnome-terminal

2

3

So I was reading an article on usesthis.com and he states "...I use the Terminus font because it is a bitmap font that renders fast and cleanly."

Is this true? Which font renders the fastest in gnome-terminal? Are bitmap fonts often faster? Is it really a noticeable difference from any other font, especially in a terminal? How does one go about testing the render speed of a font?

I did try opening gnome-terminal with my previous font (Dejavu Sans Mono) and Terminus and with DVSM, it takes a moment for text to appear but with Terminus it is instant.

dsadsads

Posted 2014-06-22T22:37:07.100

Reputation: 99

Answers

1

I really don't perceive any change in rendering speed on my terminal with different kinds of fonts (my notebook has an Intel Celeron at 2 GHz, so I should notice a change if there were any). I've even tried with sans and serif fonts (non-monospace) and using hinting but I don't notice any increase or decrease on performance of regular, non-intensive use at all. Maybe it has something to do with the x drivers of your machine. By the way I'm on Fedora 20, 64 bits.

However, I conducted a little experiment with some different fonts: terminus, dejavu mono (which is the same as monospace), liberation mono and open sans. On two different terminal emulators and with different hinting configurations:

  1. Gnome Terminal, 1 million lines, 8192 lines buffer:
    • Full font hinting:
      • terminus 9
        • Startup time: 0.348
        • Execution time: 16.137
      • monospace 9
        • Startup time: 0.344
        • Execution time: 16.199
      • liberation mono 9
        • Startup time: 0.357
        • Execution time: 16.120
      • open sans 9
        • Startup time: 0.342
        • Execution time: 16.261
    • Font hinting disabled:
      • terminus 9
        • Startup time: 0.351
        • Execution time: 16.134
      • monospace 9
        • Startup time: 0.336
        • Execution time: 16.095
      • liberation mono 9
        • Startup time: 0.349
        • Execution time: 16.391
      • open sans 9
        • Startup time: 0.352
        • Execution time: 16.157
  2. XFCE4 Terminal, 1 million lines, 8192 lines buffer:
    • Full font hinting:
      • terminus 9
        • Startup time: 0.064
        • Execution time: 16.127
      • monospace 9
        • Startup time: 0.062
        • Execution time: 16.104

All the times were measured using the time command and taken only the real value, the command was run 10 times for each different font configuration and the value displayed here is the mean of each batch of measures, a new terminal was used for every execution.

As you can see there's not any noticeable difference between the different fonts and even with or without hinting, however, the only thing that jumps into sight is the difference of the startup times between the gnome-terminal and the xfce4-terminal, where gnome is ~554% slower than xfce, but in normal circumstances this is negligible.

arielnmz

Posted 2014-06-22T22:37:07.100

Reputation: 2 960

0

I don't think it really matters. If you do a stress-test, you'll find gnome-terminal spending most of its time handling the input; updating the display is relatively cheap compared to this.

Note that for many years there was a stupid bug which made gnome-terminal (and all vte-based emulators) very slow. It was fixed in vte-0.36, bringing a ~10x improvement.

egmont

Posted 2014-06-22T22:37:07.100

Reputation: 1 791