From: John J R. <jr...@co...> - 2002-03-24 20:46:18
|
Just checking to make sure my DRI installation is working correctly...I think my glxgears frame rates are too low. I have 2 computers as follows: Computer 1 (getting ~230 FPS from glxgears): CPU: 1 GHz AMD Athlon Mem: 256 MB Video: Rage 128 SM (AGP) as probed by XFree86 Computer 2 (getting ~280 FPS): CPU: 1.1 GHz AMD Athlon Mem: 256 MB Video: Rage Mobility M1 (using mach64 driver from DRI CVS) Are these frame rates in the right ballpark? Thanks. John |
From: Craig K. <in...@in...> - 2002-03-25 16:18:47
|
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, John J Riehl wrote: > Just checking to make sure my DRI installation is working correctly...I > think my glxgears frame rates are too low. > > I have 2 computers as follows: > > Computer 1 (getting ~230 FPS from glxgears): > > CPU: 1 GHz AMD Athlon > Mem: 256 MB > Video: Rage 128 SM (AGP) as probed by XFree86 > > Computer 2 (getting ~280 FPS): > > CPU: 1.1 GHz AMD Athlon > Mem: 256 MB > Video: Rage Mobility M1 (using mach64 driver from DRI CVS) > > Are these frame rates in the right ballpark? Thanks. Run glxinfo and see what acceleration you have. Those numbers seem low to me, but then I've been using a Radeon lately. -- Craig Kelley -- kel...@is... -- This document is rot26-encoded, and protected from being read by the DMCA and all other WIPO treaty nations. http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger in...@in... for PGP block |
From: Christopher T. <ch...@lu...> - 2002-03-31 21:15:53
|
... yea, those numbers are way low. I've got a P3/500 w/ an All-in-Wonder Radeon 32MB DDR (that's the one with a slightly slower clockspeed than the original Radeon) and I can hid ~1000 fps no problem. On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 08:18, Craig Kelley wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, John J Riehl wrote: > > > Just checking to make sure my DRI installation is working correctly...I > > think my glxgears frame rates are too low. > > > > I have 2 computers as follows: > > > > Computer 1 (getting ~230 FPS from glxgears): > > > > CPU: 1 GHz AMD Athlon > > Mem: 256 MB > > Video: Rage 128 SM (AGP) as probed by XFree86 > > > > Computer 2 (getting ~280 FPS): > > > > CPU: 1.1 GHz AMD Athlon > > Mem: 256 MB > > Video: Rage Mobility M1 (using mach64 driver from DRI CVS) > > > > Are these frame rates in the right ballpark? Thanks. > > Run glxinfo and see what acceleration you have. > > Those numbers seem low to me, but then I've been using a Radeon lately. > > -- > Craig Kelley -- kel...@is... -- This document is rot26-encoded, and > protected from being read by the DMCA and all other WIPO treaty nations. > http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger in...@in... for PGP block > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-users mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-users -- - Chris Epiar Administrator/Programmer http://epiar.sourceforge.net/ |
From: John J R. <jr...@co...> - 2002-03-26 01:58:32
|
Luis Montes wrote: > On 2002.03.24 13:07 John J Riehl wrote: > > Just checking to make sure my DRI installation is working correctly...I > > think my glxgears frame rates are too low. > > > > I have 2 computers as follows: > > > > Computer 1 (getting ~230 FPS from glxgears): > > > > CPU: 1 GHz AMD Athlon > > Mem: 256 MB > > Video: Rage 128 SM (AGP) as probed by XFree86 > > Too low. I have the same chipset and a slightly faster Athlon, and get 630 > FPS. You are might be using the software-only mesa libraries. As I > remember, they are libGL.so and libGLU.so and you want to be using the > ones on your XFree86-DRI tree. Just my two cents. I figured it was too low. I've checked the libGL and libGLU... 'ldd glxgears' points both to files in /usr/lib/, so I deleted the versions in /usr/lib and copied the versions in /usr/X11R6/lib. Both of the versions in /usr/X11R6/lib match timestamp and file size with the DRI tree. Then I rebuilt glxgears...but alas, no change in frame rate. I've attached copies of XFree86.0.log, XF86Config-4, glxinfo, and 'ldd glxgears' in hopes that someone can help. The only thing I can think of is that the original installation of X is 4.1.0-15 from RPM. I'm loathe to install from the 4.2.0 tarball due to the download time, but if that's the problem I will just have to live with it... TIA, John |
From: Luis A. M. <lm...@wo...> - 2002-03-30 00:12:19
|
On 2002.03.25 18:20 John J Riehl wrote: > Luis Montes wrote: > > > On 2002.03.24 13:07 John J Riehl wrote: > > > Just checking to make sure my DRI installation is working > correctly...I > > > think my glxgears frame rates are too low. > > > > > > I have 2 computers as follows: > > > > > > Computer 1 (getting ~230 FPS from glxgears): > > > > > > CPU: 1 GHz AMD Athlon > > > Mem: 256 MB > > > Video: Rage 128 SM (AGP) as probed by XFree86 > > > > Too low. I have the same chipset and a slightly faster Athlon, and get > 630 > > FPS. You are might be using the software-only mesa libraries. As I > > remember, they are libGL.so and libGLU.so and you want to be using the > > ones on your XFree86-DRI tree. Just my two cents. > > I figured it was too low. I've checked the libGL and libGLU... 'ldd > glxgears' points both to files in /usr/lib/, so I deleted the versions in > /usr/lib and copied the versions in /usr/X11R6/lib. Both of the versions > in > /usr/X11R6/lib match timestamp and file size with the DRI tree. Then > I rebuilt glxgears...but alas, no change in frame rate. > > I've attached copies of XFree86.0.log, XF86Config-4, glxinfo, and 'ldd > glxgears' in hopes that someone can help. The only thing I can think of > is > that the original installation of X is 4.1.0-15 from RPM. I'm loathe to > install from the 4.2.0 tarball due to the download time, but if that's > the > problem I will just have to live with it... > > TIA, > > John > ... > (--) Depth 24 pixmap format is 32 bpp Try 16 bpp. I believe dri is not supposed to work on 24 bpp. |
From: John J R. <jr...@co...> - 2002-03-30 19:12:22
|
"Luis A. Montes" wrote: > > ... > > > (--) Depth 24 pixmap format is 32 bpp > > Try 16 bpp. I believe dri is not supposed to work on 24 bpp. Luis, Thanks...that did the trick. I thought I RTFM'd, but apparently I missed that little gem. Anyway, thanks for the assist. John |