GL accelerated desktop or not?
I'm wondering whether running a desktop with GL acceleration and a light wm (I'm thinking Beryl skinned with fluxbox) with all the special FX turned off would increase performance for ardour or decrease it? My assumption being that if more drawing processes are being off-loaded to the GPU then there is more CPU available for ardour. Of course I could be wrong....
Older documents regarding latency suggest that running on the open source 2d driver is better than running on a closed open gl driver (e.g. nv driver in preference to nvidia driver). The main reasons were latency due to bandwidth usage on the motherboard, noise due to poorly programmed drivers) and compatibility with rt patched kernels.
I have never really had a problem with any of the above as a result of the driver and stuck with the nvidia driver as it uses less CPU resources when running multiple screens compared with the nv driver, and handles multiple screens more elegantly. IMO the handling of multiple screens was more noticeable than any performance increase or decrease.
As the PC that runs ardour is a dedicated DAW machine, I'm looking for the best possible video setup with 2 screens (without buying an expensive gaming graphics card). If it makes any difference I'm running an Asus nvidia 7600 gs 256MB (fanless - silent). Whether that be with a propietary driver or open source is not an issue.
However, as I didn't experince problems with the propietary driver in the past, I'm more interested to learn if an accelerated desktop would make some kind of improvement to performance? If so, does the video card need to have some kind of minimum spec before it is a benefit rather than a hindrance?