LinuxQuestions.org
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   3D acceleration YES YES YES glxgears results (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/3d-acceleration-yes-yes-yes-glxgears-results-334544/)

egag 06-18-2005 04:23 PM
jeebizz,
look at the output of : "$glxinfo |grep direct"

egag

Jeebizz 06-18-2005 04:37 PM
Code:
slackuser@slacker:~$ glxinfo |grep direct
direct rendering: Yes
Ok, that was simple enough, thanx :)

killerbob 06-18-2005 06:13 PM
That's not quite enough... With that video card you could be seeing a higher framerate than you are.

glxinfo | grep render
That'll give you Direct Rendering, as well as the renderer string. If it's Mesa, then you're stuck in Software rendering, which is going to hurt your framerate.

Jeebizz 06-18-2005 06:25 PM
Ok then, so what exactly does this mean?
Code:
slackuser@slacker:/opt/kde/bin$ glxinfo | grep render
direct rendering: Yes
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Radeon 20030328 x86/MMX/3DNow! TCL
slackuser@slacker:/opt/kde/bin$

egag 06-18-2005 06:34 PM
i think you're wrong there...
---------
i see " OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 "
---------

and i'm sure the hw-acceleration is used.
running glxgears the processor is used for 7%.
software rendering would use 100%.

but it might be possible to get a higher fps using more/other options.
i don't know what's a " normal " fps for a 7500.

egag

patrickdepingui 06-19-2005 03:24 AM
I have a 7200 card (so which is about one class lower than 7500) and get frame rates of about 809 fps.
The rates Jeebizz is getting are low indeed...

Jeebizz, you should not move you mouse or any windows or let your computer run heavy tasks while running glxgears, maybe this was the case?

lagartoflojo 06-19-2005 10:48 PM
This is a Geforce4 MX440 64MB, Pentium 4 4.2GHz, 512 MB RAM, under xfce4.2 with no other apps running.

Code:
$ glxgears
5057 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1011.400 FPS
5436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1087.200 FPS
5437 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1087.400 FPS
5434 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1086.800 FPS
5435 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1087.000 FPS
5434 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1086.800 FPS
I need a better card (and more money =P ).....

bird603568 06-20-2005 12:50 AM
Here's a very nice relatively cheap card. The Nvidia ti4200. It has 128mb and is around 65$ Here's a froogle link http://froogle.google.com/froogle?sc...&sa=N&start=20

KimVette 06-20-2005 09:29 PM
Where are you folks getting an ATI driver for the 7500? Does the current Catalyst driver work with the 7500 even though they claim only 8500 and newer?

I ask because I have two ATI cards: an AiW 8500DV and a 7500PCI, running in Xinerama mode.

leadazide 06-21-2005 01:51 PM
The 7500's 3D acceleration is supported natively by XOrg DRI drivers. The 8500 both by binary drivers and XOrg DRI.

bird603568 06-21-2005 05:30 PM
after upgradeing from 2.4.31 to 2.6.12 it went from:
15717 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3143.400 FPS
25908 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5181.600 FPS
27254 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5450.800 FPS
27055 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5411.000 FPS
27249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5449.800 FPS
27369 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5473.800 FPS
27260 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5452.000 FPS
26830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5366.000 FPS
27205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5441.000 FPS
27487 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5497.400 FPS

to:
18949 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3789.800 FPS
28638 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5727.600 FPS
28412 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5682.400 FPS
28597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5719.400 FPS
28431 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5686.200 FPS
28644 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5728.800 FPS
28640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5728.000 FPS
28640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5728.000 FPS
28594 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5718.800 FPS
28637 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5727.400 FPS
28421 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5684.200 FPS
28642 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5728.400 FPS
28620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5724.000 FPS
I would say that is a nice improvement

patrickdepingui 06-22-2005 05:13 AM
I also found that upgrading to 2.6.12 (from 2.6.11) improved my glxgears rating. On 2.6.11 the enablePageFlip option for my radeon didn't make a difference, but now it does. I'm on 1004 fps instead of 809 fps.

BroX 07-29-2005 08:17 AM
Got it!
 
On my thinkpad T41 with ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 32MB and 2.6.12.3 kernel, I used to have ~1100 fps using uncovered/unresized glxgears, but somewhere along the way it had dropped to ~550 fps.

To confirm earlier posts: EnablePageFlip brought it back up to ~700 fps.
Code:
3526 frames in 5.0 seconds = 705.200 FPS
3604 frames in 5.0 seconds = 720.800 FPS
3622 frames in 5.0 seconds = 724.400 FPS
3611 frames in 5.0 seconds = 722.200 FPS
3615 frames in 5.0 seconds = 723.000 FPS
Still not the 1100 I used to get... more tinkering to do ;)

[EDIT]
Changing the default depth to 24 is what caused the decreased fps. When I put it back to 16 I get
Code:
6771 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1354.200 FPS
6807 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1361.400 FPS
6784 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1356.800 FPS
6761 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1352.200 FPS
6783 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1356.600 FPS
6783 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1356.600 FPS
I'd changed it to 24 in order to smoothly play Neverwinter Nights.

Cheers, Leon.

glussier 07-29-2005 09:02 AM
Slackware 10.1 (kernel 2.6.11)
Barton 2500+
512mB ram
Radeon 8500le (Ati drivers 8.14.13


http://www.boomspeed.com/glussier/glxgears.jpg

slackMeUp 07-29-2005 08:40 PM
Code:
8302 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1660.400 FPS
8301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1660.200 FPS
8301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1660.200 FPS
8298 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1659.600 FPS
8298 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1659.600 FPS
8301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1660.200 FPS
AthlonXP 1600+, 1.4Ghz
768 MiBs of DDR333
Radeon 9000Pro, ATi branded, 64 MiBs

EDIT, oh, almost forgot...

fglrx 8,8,25
2.6.10 (not from the slack tree)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page