After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the "glxgears" command:
IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]: 115 FPS
when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a
PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS
when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo" output looks ok. Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble ... .
Any ideas? Similar observations?
I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x]. Standard "nv" driver, no nvidia driver.
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 13:28 +0100, Joachim Frieben wrote:
After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the "glxgears" command:
IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]: 115 FPS
when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a
PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS
when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo" output looks ok. Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble ... .
Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware acceleration at all. So, the values are still reasonable for pure soft rendering and equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI" enabled!
I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x]. Standard "nv" driver, no nvidia driver.
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware acceleration at all.
Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games. Prior to SGI's contributions a few years ago, 'glxgears' wouldn't even run at all. (from glxinfo) display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: No server glx vendor string: SGI server glx version string: 1.2
So, the values are still reasonable for pure soft rendering and equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI" enabled!
I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x]. Standard "nv" driver, no nvidia driver.
GeF4, nv driver, Athlon XP 3200+/400.. 380 / 390fps on the small default window, but when run full screen, 1280x1024-24 it drops to 27 / 30fps.
Given that the subject of my post was "Low OpenGL performance", I was obviously only talking about (3D) direct rendering. Typing "man nv" allows you to learn immediately that 2D acceleration is of course available. We are not in the 80ies anymore. Anyway, thanks for posting your FPS.
I am very interested in results by other "T23" users. My current results ("DRI" *is* enabled as "env LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose glxinfo" says .. "direct rendering: Yes" .. and no complaints that it cannot load "savage_dri.so" and the like). I checked with a current "Ubuntu" live CD. Not terrific either, but about 200 FPS is still better than 115 FPS which I achieve with FC5T3.
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware acceleration at all.
Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games.
2006/2/22, Tom Brinkman tbrinkman@sbcglobal.net:
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware acceleration at all.
Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games. Prior to SGI's contributions a few years ago, 'glxgears' wouldn't even run at all. (from glxinfo) display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: No server glx vendor string: SGI server glx version string: 1.2
So, the values are still reasonable for pure soft rendering and equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI" enabled!
I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x]. Standard "nv" driver, no nvidia driver.
GeF4, nv driver, Athlon XP 3200+/400.. 380 / 390fps on the small default window, but when run full screen, 1280x1024-24 it drops to 27 / 30fps.
-- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas
--
umm care to elaborate what is hardware accelerated by the gpu with software rendering and the nv driver if the cpu does all the rendering?
regards, Rudolf Kastl
fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Joachim Frieben wrote:
After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the "glxgears" command:
IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]: 115 FPS
when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a
PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS
when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo" output looks ok. Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble ... .
Any ideas? Similar observations?
It's generally a good idea to subscribe to the DRI and Mesa mailing lists if experiencing GL performance issues or other problems. The IRC channel #dri-devel on freenode.net is also quite useful. That's a direct pipe to the developers, who are generally quite helpful and often provide troubleshooting tips, etc.
Hope this helps.
I wouldn't have posted my observation here if I hadn't checked in advance against other distros using "Xorg" 7.0.0 to exclude upstream issues to a reasonable extent. For both systems, I obtain 70% higher fps with the live CD of a different distro which makes it likely that the issue is a "Fedora" one. This justifies in my opinion the to post to this list and to ask for confirmation by other "Fedora Core" development testers. I further recall that e.g. "Red Hat" Bug #180150,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180150 ,
is due to a custom "Red Hat" patch. It is thus not at all obvious that bug reports or requests upstream are always a better idea.
-JF
It's generally a good idea to subscribe to the DRI and Mesa mailing lists if experiencing GL performance issues or other problems. The IRC channel #dri-devel on freenode.net is also quite useful. That's a direct pipe to the developers, who are generally quite helpful and often provide troubleshooting tips, etc.
Hope this helps.
-- Mike A. Harris * Open Source Advocate * http://mharris.ca Proud Canadian.
Dnia 02/22/2006 01:31 PM, Użytkownik Joachim Frieben napisał:
After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the "glxgears" command
Mesa does not enable compiler optimisations by default: http://cvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/configs/linux-dri (see the log next to the 1.12 revision) http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=5432450&forum_id=...
I spotted this when I was testing modular X.Org X11 in September 2005. I also wrote an email about it to Mike A. Harris , but I did not get an answer ;)
Mesa seems to be built with `-Wall -O -g' flags. You may want to download srpm and modify configs/default/linux-dri file. Changing OPT_FLAGS variable to the output of `rpm --eval %{optflags}' command may resolve your problem.
Unfortunately, I cannot test it because I have nVidia crap and nv driver does not support 3D acceleration [1]. Hopefully, I'll swith soon to ATI RADEON 8500 :)
[1] It would be great if someone could port BeOS driver to X.Org X11 http://haikunews.org/1050 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5190#c5
2006/2/24, Dawid Gajownik gajownik@fedora.pl:
Dnia 02/22/2006 01:31 PM, Użytkownik Joachim Frieben napisał:
After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the "glxgears" command
Mesa does not enable compiler optimisations by default: http://cvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/configs/linux-dri (see the log next to the 1.12 revision) http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=5432450&forum_id=...
I spotted this when I was testing modular X.Org X11 in September 2005. I also wrote an email about it to Mike A. Harris , but I did not get an answer ;)
Mesa seems to be built with `-Wall -O -g' flags. You may want to download srpm and modify configs/default/linux-dri file. Changing OPT_FLAGS variable to the output of `rpm --eval %{optflags}' command may resolve your problem.
Unfortunately, I cannot test it because I have nVidia crap and nv driver does not support 3D acceleration [1]. Hopefully, I'll swith soon to ATI RADEON 8500 :)
[1] It would be great if someone could port BeOS driver to X.Org X11 http://haikunews.org/1050 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5190#c5
--
^_*
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
hacking the flags in statically to the file isnt a proper solution. there must be a way to do that with a variable etc... i am going to look into the stuff this evening and will report back to that thread once i have sent a patch to bugzilla.
regards, rudolf kastl