Here's a benchmark I did today that compares desktop and WM graphics performance in Motionmark 1.2:
Mate desktop: https://i.ibb.co/ggZDN02/Screenshot-at-2023-02-19-14-37-09.png
PeKWM window manager: https://i.ibb.co/pjLPHj8/2023-02-19-142216-1920x1080-scrot.png
dwm window manager: https://i.ibb.co/X3Sh1by/2023-02-19-142959-1920x1080-scrot.png
In Xonotic I see 8% performance difference between MATE and dwm. spectrwm and PeKWM were as fast as dwm in Xonotic. i3-wm and awesomeWM were in between dwm and MATE in terms of performance in Xonotic. And now I just ran glmark2 and I have achieved an even more striking result.
MATE desktop: https://i.ibb.co/LC50Wyj/Screenshot-at-2023-02-19-21-40-52.png
PeKWM window manager: https://i.ibb.co/Cb1h1gh/2023-02-19-212447-1920x1080-scrot.png
dwm window manager: https://i.ibb.co/cXXPJYF/2023-02-19-224605-1920x1080-scrot.png
On Nvidia you have no choice but to use a compositor, and as you can understand from the above text, dwm consistently scores highest everywhere and all the time. spectrwm is the closest to dwm in my experience, but almost always super narrowly slower. MATE scores very badly in MotionMark 1.2 and in glmark2 MATE is simply a total fiasco.
Those observations make me think about GhostBSD. MATE is not a bad desktop in terms of how the interface is structured. I used to be a big fan of Gnome 2 in Ubuntu 10.10 But the performance of MATE I see makes it unsuitable to offer as a default desktop in my opinion, it also doesn't give people a good idea regarding FreeBSD graphics performance when they start benchmarking the graphics in GhostBSD.
Mate desktop: https://i.ibb.co/ggZDN02/Screenshot-at-2023-02-19-14-37-09.png
PeKWM window manager: https://i.ibb.co/pjLPHj8/2023-02-19-142216-1920x1080-scrot.png
dwm window manager: https://i.ibb.co/X3Sh1by/2023-02-19-142959-1920x1080-scrot.png
In Xonotic I see 8% performance difference between MATE and dwm. spectrwm and PeKWM were as fast as dwm in Xonotic. i3-wm and awesomeWM were in between dwm and MATE in terms of performance in Xonotic. And now I just ran glmark2 and I have achieved an even more striking result.
MATE desktop: https://i.ibb.co/LC50Wyj/Screenshot-at-2023-02-19-21-40-52.png
PeKWM window manager: https://i.ibb.co/Cb1h1gh/2023-02-19-212447-1920x1080-scrot.png
dwm window manager: https://i.ibb.co/cXXPJYF/2023-02-19-224605-1920x1080-scrot.png
On Nvidia you have no choice but to use a compositor, and as you can understand from the above text, dwm consistently scores highest everywhere and all the time. spectrwm is the closest to dwm in my experience, but almost always super narrowly slower. MATE scores very badly in MotionMark 1.2 and in glmark2 MATE is simply a total fiasco.
Those observations make me think about GhostBSD. MATE is not a bad desktop in terms of how the interface is structured. I used to be a big fan of Gnome 2 in Ubuntu 10.10 But the performance of MATE I see makes it unsuitable to offer as a default desktop in my opinion, it also doesn't give people a good idea regarding FreeBSD graphics performance when they start benchmarking the graphics in GhostBSD.