Wayland vs X11 Performance Comparison
Wayland and X11 are two primarily used Windowing systems on Linux. These windowing systems control how programs show information/data on the computer screen using a graphical interface. These window systems let several programs run at the same time, each in a rectangular box-shaped area, known as a window, and enable users to interact with them. However, these windowing systems differ from each other in terms of their working and performance.
Today, I’ll compare both of these window systems along with their features and limitations to help you choose the one that suits you the best.
What is X11
X11 is a classic windowing system for bitmap displays. It provides basic graphics support for many Linux distros. X11 enables GUIs on these systems using the client-server architecture. It is a powerful and flexible system that allows multiple applications to display graphical windows simultaneously.
Fundamentally, the X server runs on the machine with the display, keyboard, and mouse, while applications (X clients) communicate with this server to draw windows and receive user input.
Communication happens over a network-friendly protocol, which allows remote GUI apps. The server handles the basic drawings while the window manager controls the appearance and layout.
The X11 protocol is network-friendly, allowing graphical applications to run locally or remotely across a network. X11 has been used for decades, but it has some complexities along with performance and security limitations that modern systems like Wayland aim to solve.
How Does X11 Work
The client and server can either run on the same system or on different ones. When both operate on the same machine, they communicate using Unix domain sockets. If they are on different machines, they communicate over a network using the X11 protocol. The X11 protocol outlines the method for transferring graphical output and input events between the client and the server.
What is Wayland
Wayland defines how a display server talks to the program it shows on the screen. A display server that uses Wayland is known as a Wayland Compositor because it also manages how windows are drawn and layered on the screen.
X11 has been the default windowing system on Linux for decades; however, it has been replaced with Wayland in modern Linux distributions. It works as a communication protocol between the graphical applications and the X server. Wayland is developed for several reasons:
- X11 has a complex architecture that requires a lot of back-and-forth communication.
- The X server stays between the graphical applications (clients) and input/output devices.
- X11 has a problem of being inflexible, which makes it difficult for developers to improve it.
To overcome these problems, you can use Wayland, which offers a simple and streamlined code base to improve the overall performance and security.
How does Wayland work?
Wayland allows the Compositor and the client to communicate directly. The compositor keeps track of where windows are, their size, and their current state on the screen. It also handles input events like keyboard and mouse actions and sends them to the right app. In response, the app updates what the user sees.
Here, one notable difference from other systems is that apps draw their own windows using the Wayland libraries. During the process, the app can change the existing image buffer (the place where it stores the Windows visuals) or create a new one and remove the existing one. After making such changes, the app lets the compositor know so that it can refresh the display with the updated content.
How Do I Check if I’m Using Wayland or X11?
There are various methods available to check which windowing system you are using. Most common among them is printing the value of the XDG_SESSION_TYPE environment variable:
echo $XDG_SESSION_TYPE
Alternatively, you can navigate to the About section of your Software Center and check the windowing system:
KDE users can use the kinfocenter command in the terminal emulator to check their windowing system:
kinfocenter about-distro
When you run this command, it pops up a GUI window “About this system”. Navigate to the Graphics platform field to find your display server protocol:
Wayland Vs. X11 Performance Comparison
The table below provides an in-depth comparison between Wayland and X11 across various performance metrics:
| Feature | Wayland | X11 |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Release | 30 September 2008. | 15 September 1987. |
| Purpose | To replace X11 with a more secure and efficient windowing system. | To create a robust, network-transparent, and hardware-independent windowing system to manage GUIs on Unix-like systems. |
| Stability | Focuses more on performance and security enhancements rather than stability. | More stable due to its long history and overall usage. |
| Security | More secure than X11. | Lacks encryption, hence raises security concerns. |
| Efficiency | Wayland is designed to enhance user experience and improve overall performance. | Less efficient as compared to Wayland because of its old architecture. |
| Codebase | Simple and easy to understand. | Complex codebase because it’s a collection of interacting components instead of a single, monolithic codebase. |
| Input Delay | Reduces input lag. | More input delay as compared to Wayland. |
| Compatibility | Compatible with modern hardware. | Compatible with legacy hardware. |
| Debugging | Wayland offers a simple and modern approach, but requires an updated debugging tools infrastructure. | Better debugging process due to the availability of more mature and comprehensive debugging tools and legacy applications. |
| Resource Usage | Provide better resource usage in terms of power and memory consumption. | Requires more resources as compared to Wayland. |
| Window Sizing | Handles window sizing or scaling efficiently. | Sometimes, manual configuration is required to deal with window sizing. |
| Customization | Focuses more on performance rather than customizability. It is less customizable compared to X11. | X11 is more customizable when used with a tiling window system. |
Based on the above comparison, I can conclude that Wayland has a performance edge over X11.
Which Windowing System Should I Use, Wayland or X11?
Overall, Wayland is considered better than X11 because of improved security, enhanced performance, reduced latency, and many more features. However, choosing a Windowing system depends on your specific requirements and use cases.
Nowadays, Wayland is the default windowing system on most Linux distributions. It is recommended for users who prefer security and efficiency over customization and stability. On the other hand, you can choose X11 with a tiling manager for maximum customization.
Overall, Wayland is an advanced windowing system and has the upper hand over X Window System. However, personally, I still recommend you stick with your default system unless you face some sort of issues.
How to Switch Between Windowing Systems on Linux?
Navigate to the login screen, click on your profile/username, and then click the gear icon available in the bottom right corner of your screen.
It shows multiple options; the ones that contain an X indicate the X windowing system, while the other ones that do not include X in their name are Wayland.
Select the desired Windowing system from the available options and then log in to use it:
Alternatively, you can edit the “custom.conf” file. To do that, open the file in an editor like nano:
sudo nano /etc/gdm3/custom.conf
After accessing this file, uncomment the following line:
Save the file with Ctrl+O and exit using Ctrl+X. After this, restart your system or sign out and back in to make the updates take effect.
In the future, if you change your mind and want to switch back to Wayland, you can update this “WaylandEnable” value to “True”:
WaylandEnable=true
Save the configuration file and reboot your system to log in with the Wayland display.
Conclusion
Overall, Wayland is more efficient in terms of efficiency, security, and latency, and is compatible with modern hardware. However, in some cases, X11 outperforms Wayland, as it’s more stable, works well with legacy hardware, and offers more customization when used with a tiling window manager.
