This is comparing different DE's how is this at all useful? They could literally compare kde in Wayland and x11 directly (at least until 6.8) and yet didn't? This is more comparing different implementations in an apples to oranges comparison than Wayland and x11 implementations in an apples to apples comparison.

For dual monitors and partial scaling wayland have been a bless.

It's not that's more or less efficient or more of less fast. It's that's been able to do things thar X was unable to and had to be practically hacked to get a clunky solution.

Only ran once, doesn't measure x server cpu usage, claims "not necessarily more efficient" despite kwin and labwc showing higher framerate for seemingly similar power usage numbers, no discussion of e.g. frame times, consistency and cpu vs gpu limited...

I like Wayland just because it lets me easily use two monitors of different resolutions and refresh rates.

I used X11 for about 6 months when I first used Linux because I still had an Nvidia GTX 1080 at the time and Wayland wouldn't even load for me then.

I did manage to get my monitor setup somewhat working on X11 through a lot of manual editing and the trade off constant screen tearing on my low hz 2nd monitor.

When I finally got an AMD card I loaded KDEs Wayland session on the same Linux install and it automatically set the max res and hz for both monitors including the new 1440p 170hz main monitor I got along with the GPU.

Wayland is just the protocol. You're benchmarking a bunch of different wayland compositors against XOrg, and from the looks of things, at least one (mutter) is worse in every metric than XOrg, so the headline of the article is misleading.

It's better. Much better. If Linux desktops was still on X, it would feel and be incredibly dated. I know it works "fine" but has many limitations, which is why we needed Wayland in the first place.

They compare different desktops, ok. But what about XFCE X11 vs. XFCE wayland?

I'd be interested in tests across hardware of different ages (but as others have said, same/similar DEs/WMs/compositors as much as possible, please). While I have no proof, I'd guess that Wayland is making assumptions that would make it less efficient on some older kit.

Didn't because Wayland can produced more performance and that's why it's using more power?

I've been running nothing than sway after doing a quick test on my rpi 4, running doom 3 -- and the performance difference was really significant.

Faster for thee but not for me, it was unbearably slower than X11 when I attempted to switch over, granted Debian may be behind on a few updates as per usual.

This is stupid and probably ignorant too, but I couldn’t get RDP dynamic window resizing to work on Wayland no matter what I tried and went back to gnome which works great.