It consumes, on the client, 800%-1200% CPU AND 8%-10% GPU decode on my NVIDIA card. I opened a bug and they transformed it into a discussion, without any response.
How dare they.
Going on what the poster above says about CPU and memory - if the network speed or bandwidth allocation is the bottleneck, then trading CPU and memory utilisation increases for lower bandwidth is likely acceptable. If, however, the device is low end and tying up memory and CPU with compression would lead to sluggish or impaired task performance but the network has adequate overhead for lower levels of compression or higher levels of data transfer then higher network utilisation would be preferable.
Different tools, different use case scenarios.
However, I would say that high CPU or GPU usage is not necessarily an indicator of bad performance, especially since higher utilization can mean better performance.
That's what made me uninstall RustDesk.
If you're experiencing a bug that pegs you're CPU, fair enough. But RustDesk is video-stream based (in many formats), while TightVNC is image(-region) based. This is actually similar to why you watch movies in, say, H.264 rather than Motion JPEG¹.
¹=similar, not same.
No, thanks.
As they say: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". So I used both applications and TightVNC is just a lot better, particularly in constrained remote VMs.
Docs are cheap, performance is what matters.
How do you know if the performance you get is the expected, unless you read the docs or at least look at what others get on similar platforms/environments/specs?
> TigerVNC was originally based on the (never-released) VNC 4 branch of TightVNC.
It seems to be popular, that’s why I’m asking.
Funny thing is that the document where they'd explain their reasoning to fork TightVNC returns 404.