[Anilm3]

This is a very interesting concept and another example of what can be done with Rust. However and without the intention of discouraging the author, I did not find any performance improvement from Alacritty using Ubuntu 16.04 on an i7-4500U (using integrated graphics HD 4400). Here are some numbers, simply printing the contents of 446 files:

At 80x24:

gnome-terminal:

  real	0m0.848s
  user	0m0.032s
  sys	0m0.072s

Alacritty:

  real	0m6.832s
  user	0m0.032s
  sys	0m0.164s

At fullscreen:

gnome-terminal:

  real	0m0.819s
  user	0m0.020s
  sys	0m0.088s

Alacritty:

  real	0m8.972s
  user	0m0.064s
  sys	0m0.164s

The font was a tad smaller by default on Alacritty, changing it made no significant difference in the numbers. Since the difference in performance was quite noticeable I decided not to test other possible configurations, but I could do so if it might help.

My graphics card has a pretty poor performance in general so that might be an indication that, since the performance of Alacritty is directly impacted by the graphics card, it might be useful for the author to determine the "minimum requirements" for Alacritty to outperform the competition.

In any case, it might not be a fair comparison as the author has stated that this is a pre-alpha release, but maybe he can find it helpful in some way, as he suggests he hasn't been able to find a test in which Alacritty didn't perform as well as another terminal.

[jwilm]

There's a known bug when using Mesa that kills performance. Hopefully we'll get it resolved soon!