Greetings;
Warning, fglrx newbie here. I've been running the kernels radeon drivers for the last 3 years since my last nvidia card took a crap and took the motherboard with it.
I've downloaded and installed the current ati drivers for my third party (VisionTek I think) ati 9200SE 128mb card.
Unforch, its running at about 1/4 the speed I can get from the kernels radeon drivers.
kernel is 2.6.20-ck1, ati-agp and nvidia-agp are compiled in but this made no difference. There is also an ati-agp module loaded according to lsmod.
DRM and DRI refuse to initialize. So the Xorg.0.log has this: ----------------------- (II) LoadModule: "fglrx" (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/fglrx_drv.so (II) Module fglrx: vendor="FireGL - ATI Technologies Inc." (WW) fglrx: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:2:0:1) found (II) fglrx(0): pEnt->device->identifier=0x8217610 (II) fglrx(0): === [R200PreInit] === begin, [s] (II) fglrx(0): PCI bus 2 card 0 func 0 (**) fglrx(0): Depth 24, (--) framebuffer bpp 32 (II) fglrx(0): Pixel depth = 24 bits stored in 4 bytes (32 bpp pixmaps) (==) fglrx(0): Default visual is TrueColor (**) fglrx(0): Option "DPMS" "true" (==) fglrx(0): RGB weight 888 (II) fglrx(0): Using 8 bits per RGB (8 bit DAC) (==) fglrx(0): Gamma Correction for I is 0x06419064 (==) fglrx(0): Gamma Correction for II is 0x06419064 (==) fglrx(0): Buffer Tiling is ON (II) fglrx(0): Primary V_BIOS segment is: 0xc000 (--) fglrx(0): Chipset: "RADEON 9250/9200 Series (RV280 5964)" (Chipset = 0x5964) (--) fglrx(0): (PciSubVendor = 0x1545, PciSubDevice = 0x7c13) (--) fglrx(0): board vendor info: third party graphics adapter - NOT original ATI (--) fglrx(0): Linear framebuffer (phys) at 0xd8000000 (--) fglrx(0): MMIO registers at 0xe9000000 (==) fglrx(0): ROM-BIOS at 0x000c0000 (II) fglrx(0): VESA BIOS detected (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE Version 2.0 (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE Total Mem: 16384 kB (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE OEM: ATI RADEON 9200 (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE OEM Software Rev: 1.0 (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE OEM Vendor: ATI Technologies Inc. (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE OEM Product: V280 (II) fglrx(0): VESA VBE OEM Product Rev: 01.00 (WW) fglrx(0): Failed to open DRM connection (--) fglrx(0): VideoRAM: 131072 kByte, Type: DDR SGRAM / SDRAM (II) fglrx(0): AGP card detected (WW) fglrx(0): board is an unknown third party board, chipset is supported (II) fglrx(0): Connected Display1: CRT on primary DAC (II) fglrx(0): Display1 EDID data --------------------------- (II) fglrx(0): Manufacturer: XXX Model: 1996 Serial#: 69590637 (II) fglrx(0): Year: 2005 Week: 30 (II) fglrx(0): EDID Version: 1.1 (II) fglrx(0): Analog Display Input, Input Voltage Level: 0.700/0.700 V -------- then near the end, this: -------- [root@coyote ~]# grep '(WW)' /var/log/Xorg.0.log (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (WW) The core pointer device wasn't specified explicitly in the layout. (WW) Open ACPI failed (/var/run/acpid.socket) (No such file or directory) (WW) Warning, couldn't open module ati-agp (WW) fglrx: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:2:0:1) found (WW) fglrx(0): Failed to open DRM connection (WW) fglrx(0): board is an unknown third party board, chipset is supported (WW) fglrx(0): *********************************************** (WW) fglrx(0): * DRI initialization failed! * (WW) fglrx(0): * (maybe driver kernel module missing or bad) * (WW) fglrx(0): * 2D acceleraton available (MMIO) * (WW) fglrx(0): * no 3D acceleration available * (WW) fglrx(0): ********************************************* * (WW) fglrx(0): Option "VendorName" is not used (WW) fglrx(0): Option "ModelName" is not used (WW) <default pointer>: No Device specified, looking for one...
The question is what kernel module?
The /etc/X11/xorg.conf was generated with 'aticonfig --initial' from a tty console. I've added drm and ati-agp to the Load Modules section, no difference.
The gzipped .config for this kernel is attached.
What else would it be helpfull to post in an attempt to troubleshoot this?
On Friday 23 February 2007, Gene Heskett wrote: [and snipped once is enough for most of this]
(WW) Open ACPI failed (/var/run/acpid.socket) (No such file or directory)
It may not have existed when x was started, but it does exist now: Restarting X doesn't change the message though.
# ls -la /var/run ... srw-rw-rw- 1 root root 0 Feb 22 22:20 acpid.socket ...
(WW) Warning, couldn't open module ati-agp
It is available and loadable, but doesn't link to anything when I do load it. Restarting x with it loaded doesn't effect the error.
From an lsmod:
radeon 115744 0 drm 78356 1 radeon nvidia_agp 12060 1 agpgart 34380 2 drm,nvidia_agp
This motherboard is an nvidia nforce2 motherboard.
(WW) fglrx: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:2:0:1) found
The PCI BusID is miss-quoted in the error message, its 2:00.1 in the lspci output:
[root@coyote dlds-rpms]# lspci -vv |grep -A9 2:00.1 02:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 SE] (Secondary) (rev 01) Subsystem: VISIONTEK Unknown device 7c12 Control: I/O- Mem- BusMaster- SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- Status: Cap+ 66MHz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- Region 0: Memory at e0000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [disabled] [size=128M] Region 1: Memory at e9010000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=64K] Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-) Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
(WW) fglrx(0): Failed to open DRM connection (WW) fglrx(0): board is an unknown third party board, chipset is supported (WW) fglrx(0):
(WW) fglrx(0): * DRI initialization failed! * (WW) fglrx(0): * (maybe driver kernel module missing or bad) * (WW) fglrx(0): * 2D acceleraton available (MMIO) * (WW) fglrx(0): * no 3D acceleration available * (WW) fglrx(0): ********************************************* * (WW) fglrx(0): Option "VendorName" is not used (WW) fglrx(0): Option "ModelName" is not used (WW) <default pointer>: No Device specified, looking for one...
The question is what kernel module?
What else would it be helpfull to post in an attempt to troubleshoot this?
On Fri February 23 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I've downloaded and installed the current ati drivers for my third party (VisionTek I think) ati 9200SE 128mb card.
Me believes this may be your prob. As I recall, support for older ATI cards was dropped in a fairly recent driver update. I even found that corroborated somewhere on the ATI site, if my memory serves. I'm not sure where you're downloading these drivers for your card, but, I'd suggest poking around. When this happenned, I did the research and confirmed what I'd read in some post somewhere, which occasion I used to happily dump all my 9200SE's (I had three or four), and went to NVidia. If you decide to upgrade, I would also suggest you get your drivers from freshrpms and install the dkms package at the same time - dkms will automate the module building process for you, so that each time you upgrade your kernel, it will detect that and build a new kernel module for you on the fly as part of the boot process - for this to work, you will also need the kernel-headers package for your kernel - install that once, install the driver once, install dkms once, and you'll never have to think about your video drivers anymore - I haven't installed a new kernel module through six or so kernel updates in FC6.
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri February 23 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I've downloaded and installed the current ati drivers for my third party (VisionTek I think) ati 9200SE 128mb card.
Me believes this may be your prob. As I recall, support for older ATI cards was dropped in a fairly recent driver update. I even found that corroborated somewhere on the ATI site, if my memory serves. I'm not sure where you're downloading these drivers for your card, but, I'd suggest poking around. When this happenned, I did the research and confirmed what I'd read in some post somewhere, which occasion I used to happily dump all my 9200SE's (I had three or four), and went to NVidia. If you decide to upgrade, I would also suggest you get your drivers from freshrpms and install the dkms package at the same time - dkms will automate the module building process for you, so that each time you upgrade your kernel, it will detect that and build a new kernel module for you on the fly as part of the boot process - for this to work, you will also need the kernel-headers package for your kernel
- install that once, install the driver once, install dkms once, and
you'll never have to think about your video drivers anymore - I haven't installed a new kernel module through six or so kernel updates in FC6.
Well, I've been looking for a good excuse to drop this ati. But the driver propaganda claims to support the rv280 chipset, which this is. Its odd, glxgears claims 750+ fps running on the kernel driver, but I think from the looks of it, its throwing away 9 frame out of 10. It runs much rougher on the fglrx driver, and only claims about 240 fps. Either one seems stable though.
I'd bought it on the rebound after an nvidia card crowbarred the buss as it died and took some buffering on the motherboard with it, biostar mobo, so it had the first 2 of 3 strikes against it already, the bad caps story.
So I was out everything, as cpu's had gotten faster, and my memory wouldn't fit the mobo's available, so it was all toast. I did salvage the cpu and memory and they are now running my milling machine, but that's another long story all by itself I won't bore this list with since its running kubuntu-6.06 with a magma kernel. Sorta off-topic...
But I like to buy locally, and neither circuit city nor staples has anything that looks good in an 8x agp socket style, and this mobo doesn't have pci-e.
The pny 6800 something or other looks good, but nobody has one except direct mail order via circuit city. And pny would probably be the same story as this ati, no support for 3rd party makers.
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly. This XP-2800 athlon always did run like a 3 legged donkey anyway, it only tolerates a 333mhz fsb but the board can go faster. :-)
See, I'm making excuses already, justification you know. Gotta lay the groundwork... ;-)
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=4128229
Just put one of these in an AGP slot in my ASUS - it scats! With 256 mb ram it's got plenty of ooomffff - certified to run Cinelerra according to several folks on that list, and look at that price
I know you said you like to buy local, but, if you choose to make an exception, I've found mwave.com to be a great resource. They have the best website for building systems from scratch, because you can choose various mobos, and they offer you drop downs for processors they have that will work with that mobo and drop downs for memory - takes a lot of research effort out of the process, And their prices are some of the best. I buy a lot of stuff from their closeouts and bargain basement sections, where you can really get some astounding deals.
Another nice site is surpluscomputers.com - they're currently offering the Pioneer 111 DVD writers for $39 - just bought 3 today - far as I'm concerned, no one builds a better DVD writer than Pioneer for day-in/day-out DVD duplication work in a studio environment
This is the place I got my SuperMicro server recently discussed in a different thread on this list. Barebones price was $817 and that includes a 675 watt P.S., eight hot swappable SATA trays with built in RAID, up to 64 GB of ram in some configurations, and lots more - we got that machine up this week, and it's dancing circles around our old $30k Compaq Proliant -
So far as the NVidia cards, I also bought a bunch of PCIx versions of the one above, and they are real fast: glxgears 2330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 465.975 FPS 2304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 460.695 FPS 2275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 454.949 FPS
On Sat February 24 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
This is the place I got my SuperMicro server recently discussed in a different thread on this list. Barebones price was $817 and that includes a 675 watt P.S., eight hot swappable SATA trays with built in RAID, up to 64 GB of ram in some configurations, and lots more - we got that machine up this week, and it's dancing circles around our old $30k Compaq Proliant -
A slight mis-speak here. The SuperMicro server came from MWave, not from SurplusComputers which is discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=4128229
Just put one of these in an AGP slot in my ASUS - it scats! With 256 mb ram it's got plenty of ooomffff - certified to run Cinelerra according to several folks on that list, and look at that price
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
I know you said you like to buy local, but, if you choose to make an exception, I've found mwave.com to be a great resource. They have the best website for building systems from scratch, because you can choose various mobos, and they offer you drop downs for processors they have that will work with that mobo and drop downs for memory - takes a lot of research effort out of the process, And their prices are some of the best. I buy a lot of stuff from their closeouts and bargain basement sections, where you can really get some astounding deals.
Another nice site is surpluscomputers.com - they're currently offering the Pioneer 111 DVD writers for $39 - just bought 3 today - far as I'm concerned, no one builds a better DVD writer than Pioneer for day-in/day-out DVD duplication work in a studio environment
This is the place I got my SuperMicro server recently discussed in a different thread on this list. Barebones price was $817 and that includes a 675 watt P.S., eight hot swappable SATA trays with built in RAID, up to 64 GB of ram in some configurations, and lots more - we got that machine up this week, and it's dancing circles around our old $30k Compaq Proliant -
So far as the NVidia cards, I also bought a bunch of PCIx versions of the one above, and they are real fast: glxgears 2330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 465.975 FPS 2304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 460.695 FPS 2275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 454.949 FPS
I'll look when I'm awake agan, but this ati (and I think glxgears is lieing to me) says it doing 770 or so.
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
Jaton is a Taiwan based computer parts company. We've used them for years - they tend towards the lower end of the price scale, but, we've had few problems with their products. When managing 100+ plus computers, many for a non-profit, the price is a consideration. As far as the NVidia part of your question, yes, it is an NVidia chipset and appears as an NVidia card to the NVidia driver - there are many companies putting out varieties of NVidia cards with feature-add-ons - poke around that mwave site, and you'll see them.
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
Jaton is a Taiwan based computer parts company. We've used them for years - they tend towards the lower end of the price scale, but, we've had few problems with their products. When managing 100+ plus computers, many for a non-profit, the price is a consideration. As far as the NVidia part of your question, yes, it is an NVidia chipset and appears as an NVidia card to the NVidia driver - there are many companies putting out varieties of NVidia cards with feature-add-ons - poke around that mwave site, and you'll see them.
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
Ok, ok, I bought one of them :)
On 2/24/07, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=4128229
Just put one of these in an AGP slot in my ASUS - it scats! With 256 mb ram it's got plenty of ooomffff - certified to run Cinelerra according to several folks on that list, and look at that price
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
All nVidia cards use the same chipset and the same driver. It does not matter who puts together the card itself. If it uses an nVidia GPU, it is an nVidia graphics card. Now, the quality of the card itself may vary slightly based upon the manufacturer. And the features will (such as ports, amount of RAM, etc). Oh, you can probably find a better price than that. I like Newegg.com personally: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+10...
Avoid the "Turbo Caching" stuff. That uses system RAM to augment the video RAM actually on the card. Get dedicated Video RAM.
[snip]
So far as the NVidia cards, I also bought a bunch of PCIx versions of the one above, and they are real fast: glxgears 2330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 465.975 FPS 2304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 460.695 FPS 2275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 454.949 FPS
I'll look when I'm awake agan, but this ati (and I think glxgears is lieing to me) says it doing 770 or so.
That seems rather low. But glxgears is a poor benchmark as it is also closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Jonathan
On Sat February 24 2007 1:54:08 pm Jonathan Berry wrote:
That seems rather low. But glxgears is a poor benchmark as it is also closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Compared to your figures, you're right. How do you enable AIGLX? Just ran mine again and got a little better:
glxgears 29690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5937.964 FPS 29435 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5886.995 FPS 29941 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5988.032 FPS 29827 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5965.388 FPS 30001 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6000.092 FPS 29802 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5960.290 FPS
On Sat February 24 2007 4:48:26 pm Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007 1:54:08 pm Jonathan Berry wrote:
That seems rather low. But glxgears is a poor benchmark as it is also closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Compared to your figures, you're right. How do you enable AIGLX? Just ran mine again and got a little better:
glxgears 29690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5937.964 FPS 29435 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5886.995 FPS 29941 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5988.032 FPS 29827 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5965.388 FPS 30001 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6000.092 FPS 29802 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5960.290 FPS
I'm not sure if this worked, but I followed the instructions here - http://clunixchit.blogspot.com/2006/10/fc6-aiglx-with-nvidia-beta-driver.htm... I don't think these instrux were for my version of the driver, looking down further on that page, so I'll probably undo them. These are my results after a fresh reboot:
glxgears 30235 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6046.989 FPS 30231 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6046.144 FPS 30411 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6082.149 FPS 30228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6045.419 FPS 30176 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6035.012 FPS 30243 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6048.541 FPS
Only a very marginal improvement over my previous run, above shoown.
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/24/07, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=4128229
Just put one of these in an AGP slot in my ASUS - it scats! With 256 mb ram it's got plenty of ooomffff - certified to run Cinelerra according to several folks on that list, and look at that price
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
All nVidia cards use the same chipset and the same driver. It does not matter who puts together the card itself. If it uses an nVidia GPU, it is an nVidia graphics card. Now, the quality of the card itself may vary slightly based upon the manufacturer. And the features will (such as ports, amount of RAM, etc). Oh, you can probably find a better price than that.
I bought that one, should be here in a week. [...]
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/24/07, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat February 24 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
I might have to start from scratch again just to change the video card. And I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 4x the price of the mobo on a video card just so the gl screenblankers run smoothly.
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=4128229
Just put one of these in an AGP slot in my ASUS - it scats! With 256 mb ram it's got plenty of ooomffff - certified to run Cinelerra according to several folks on that list, and look at that price
Not bad at all, but who is Jaton? Does it look like an nvidia card to the nvidia driver?
All nVidia cards use the same chipset and the same driver. It does not matter who puts together the card itself. If it uses an nVidia GPU, it is an nVidia graphics card. Now, the quality of the card itself may vary slightly based upon the manufacturer. And the features will (such as ports, amount of RAM, etc). Oh, you can probably find a better price than that. I like Newegg.com personally: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+10 6790703&Subcategory=48&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=
Avoid the "Turbo Caching" stuff. That uses system RAM to augment the video RAM actually on the card. Get dedicated Video RAM.
[snip]
So far as the NVidia cards, I also bought a bunch of PCIx versions of the one above, and they are real fast: glxgears 2330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 465.975 FPS 2304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 460.695 FPS 2275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 454.949 FPS
I'll look when I'm awake agan, but this ati (and I think glxgears is lieing to me) says it doing 770 or so.
That seems rather low. But glxgears is a poor benchmark as it is also closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Jonathan
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here. But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
glxinfo looks better: [root@coyote ~]# glxinfo name of display: :0.0 display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: Yes server glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation server glx version string: 1.4 server glx extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_video_sync, GLX_SGI_swap_control, GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_NV_float_buffer, GLX_ARB_fbconfig_float client glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation client glx version string: 1.4 client glx extensions: GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_SGI_video_sync, GLX_NV_swap_group, GLX_NV_video_out, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_swap_control, GLX_NV_float_buffer, GLX_ARB_fbconfig_float, GLX_EXT_fbconfig_packed_float, GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, GLX_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB GLX version: 1.3 GLX extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_video_sync, GLX_SGI_swap_control, GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_NV_float_buffer, GLX_ARB_fbconfig_float, GLX_ARB_get_proc_address OpenGL vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation OpenGL renderer string: GeForce 6200/AGP/SSE/3DNOW! OpenGL version string: 2.1.0 NVIDIA 97.46 OpenGL extensions: GL_ARB_color_buffer_float, GL_ARB_depth_texture, GL_ARB_draw_buffers, GL_ARB_fragment_program, GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow, GL_ARB_fragment_shader, GL_ARB_half_float_pixel, GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multisample, GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_ARB_occlusion_query, GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object, GL_ARB_point_parameters, GL_ARB_point_sprite, GL_ARB_shadow, GL_ARB_shader_objects, GL_ARB_shading_language_100, GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp, GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_cube_map, GL_ARB_texture_env_add, GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3, GL_ARB_texture_float, GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat, GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two, GL_ARB_texture_rectangle, GL_ARB_transpose_matrix, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object, GL_ARB_vertex_program, GL_ARB_vertex_shader, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_ATI_draw_buffers, GL_ATI_texture_float, GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once, GL_S3_s3tc, GL_EXT_texture_env_add, GL_EXT_abgr, GL_EXT_bgra, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate, GL_EXT_blend_func_separate, GL_EXT_blend_minmax, GL_EXT_blend_subtract, GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array, GL_EXT_Cg_shader, GL_EXT_depth_bounds_test, GL_EXT_draw_range_elements, GL_EXT_fog_coord, GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit, GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample, GL_EXT_framebuffer_object, GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters, GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays, GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil, GL_EXT_packed_pixels, GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object, GL_EXT_point_parameters, GL_EXT_rescale_normal, GL_EXT_secondary_color, GL_EXT_separate_specular_color, GL_EXT_shadow_funcs, GL_EXT_stencil_clear_tag, GL_EXT_stencil_two_side, GL_EXT_stencil_wrap, GL_EXT_texture3D, GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc, GL_EXT_texture_cube_map, GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp, GL_EXT_texture_env_combine, GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3, GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, GL_EXT_texture_lod, GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias, GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp, GL_EXT_texture_object, GL_EXT_texture_sRGB, GL_EXT_timer_query, GL_EXT_vertex_array, GL_IBM_rasterpos_clip, GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat, GL_KTX_buffer_region, GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color, GL_NV_depth_clamp, GL_NV_fence, GL_NV_float_buffer, GL_NV_fog_distance, GL_NV_fragment_program, GL_NV_fragment_program_option, GL_NV_fragment_program2, GL_NV_framebuffer_multisample_coverage, GL_NV_half_float, GL_NV_light_max_exponent, GL_NV_multisample_filter_hint, GL_NV_occlusion_query, GL_NV_packed_depth_stencil, GL_NV_pixel_data_range, GL_NV_point_sprite, GL_NV_primitive_restart, GL_NV_register_combiners, GL_NV_register_combiners2, GL_NV_texgen_reflection, GL_NV_texture_compression_vtc, GL_NV_texture_env_combine4, GL_NV_texture_expand_normal, GL_NV_texture_rectangle, GL_NV_texture_shader, GL_NV_texture_shader2, GL_NV_texture_shader3, GL_NV_vertex_array_range, GL_NV_vertex_array_range2, GL_NV_vertex_program, GL_NV_vertex_program1_1, GL_NV_vertex_program2, GL_NV_vertex_program2_option, GL_NV_vertex_program3, GL_NVX_conditional_render, GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap, GL_SGIS_texture_lod, GL_SGIX_depth_texture, GL_SGIX_shadow, GL_SUN_slice_accum
visual x bf lv rg d st colorbuffer ax dp st accumbuffer ms cav id dep cl sp sz l ci b ro r g b a bf th cl r g b a ns b eat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0x21 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x22 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x24 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x25 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x26 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x27 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x28 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x29 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2a 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2b 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2c 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2d 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2e 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x2f 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x30 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x31 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x32 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x33 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x34 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x35 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x36 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x37 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x38 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x39 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3a 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3b 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3c 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3d 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3e 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x3f 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x40 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x41 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x42 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x43 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x44 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x45 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x46 24 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x47 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x48 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x49 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x4a 24 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x4b 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x4c 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x4d 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x4e 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x4f 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x50 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x51 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x52 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x53 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x54 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x55 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x56 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x57 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x58 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x59 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x5a 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x5b 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x5c 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x5d 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x5e 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x5f 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x60 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x61 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x62 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x63 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x64 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x65 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x66 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x67 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x68 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x69 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6a 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6b 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6c 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6d 24 dc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6e 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x6f 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x70 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x71 24 dc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x23 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x72 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x73 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x74 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x75 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x76 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x77 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x78 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x79 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7a 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7b 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7c 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7d 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7e 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x7f 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x80 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x81 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x82 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x83 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x84 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x85 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x86 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x87 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x88 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x89 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8a 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8b 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8c 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8d 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8e 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x8f 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x90 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 24 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x91 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x92 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x93 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x94 32 tc 0 32 0 r y . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x95 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x96 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x97 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 0 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon 0x98 32 tc 0 32 0 r . . 8 8 8 8 4 16 0 16 16 16 16 0 0 Ncon
So what do I check next? And, whats all that 'Ncon' stuff telling me?
And many thanks for the help I've been given by several already. :)
On Wed February 28 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here. But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
Currently, at home, I'm experiencing a big system barf. If I try to run GLXgears, the screen blacks out and after a few moments, it returns me to a log-in screen. Can't give any time to this this am because I have to go to an appointment. The figures I cited were from my work machine which is a 2.66 GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken - I'll double-check that when I get in. This machine is a dual-core 2.66 MHz w/ 2 GB ram.
On Thursday 01 March 2007, Claude Jones wrote:
On Wed February 28 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here. But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
Currently, at home, I'm experiencing a big system barf. If I try to run GLXgears, the screen blacks out and after a few moments, it returns me to a log-in screen. Can't give any time to this this am because I have to go to an appointment. The figures I cited were from my work machine which is a 2.66 GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken - I'll double-check that when I get in. This machine is a dual-core 2.66 MHz w/ 2 GB ram.
I've not made the jump to a dual core anything yet, but I can see it in the future I believe. I'll be waiting so we can compare notes.
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA
On 3/1/07, Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
On Wed February 28 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here. But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
Currently, at home, I'm experiencing a big system barf. If I try to run GLXgears, the screen blacks out and after a few moments, it returns me to a log-in screen. Can't give any time to this this am because I have to go to an
That means X is crashing. Probably a driver issue. Are you using the nVidia installer, or a packaged driver? If the former, have you done any X updates lately?
appointment. The figures I cited were from my work machine which is a 2.66 GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken - I'll double-check that when I get in. This machine is a dual-core 2.66 MHz w/ 2 GB ram.
That explains the difference in FPS values :-).
Jonathan
On Thu March 1 2007 10:31:13 am Jonathan Berry wrote:
Currently, at home, I'm experiencing a big system barf. If I try to run GLXgears, the screen blacks out and after a few moments, it returns me to a log-in screen. Can't give any time to this this am because I have to go to an
That means X is crashing. Probably a driver issue. Are you using the nVidia installer, or a packaged driver? If the former, have you done any X updates lately?
Well, yes, X is crashing - I do know that, but, I haven't been able to figure out why. I did spend some considerable time on the NV forum the night before last, trying to sort it out, but, I'm at the point of having to turn on some logging and let folks look at results, and I haven't had time to get to that yet.
appointment. The figures I cited were from my work machine which is a 2.66 GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken - I'll double-check that when I get in. This machine is a dual-core 2.66 MHz w/ 2 GB ram.
That explains the difference in FPS values :-).
How so? My slower machine is getting 3X faster fps values than my dual-core with twice the ram...
To Gene: This machine (I'm at work, now), is a 2.8 GHz P4 with 1 GB of ram. GLXgears just produced this:
glxgears 21379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4275.750 FPS 30310 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.993 FPS 30308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.511 FPS 30308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.598 FPS 30152 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6030.331 FPS
Pretty good. This is with an NVidia GForce 5500, 256 mb ram, AGP 8X card
On 3/1/07, Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
On Thu March 1 2007 10:31:13 am Jonathan Berry wrote:
Currently, at home, I'm experiencing a big system barf. If I try to run GLXgears, the screen blacks out and after a few moments, it returns me to a log-in screen. Can't give any time to this this am because I have to go to an
That means X is crashing. Probably a driver issue. Are you using the nVidia installer, or a packaged driver? If the former, have you done any X updates lately?
Well, yes, X is crashing - I do know that, but, I haven't been able to figure out why. I did spend some considerable time on the NV forum the night before last, trying to sort it out, but, I'm at the point of having to turn on some logging and let folks look at results, and I haven't had time to get to that yet.
Okay. Well, what has changed from when it was working?
appointment. The figures I cited were from my work machine which is a 2.66 GHz P4, if I'm not mistaken - I'll double-check that when I get in. This machine is a dual-core 2.66 MHz w/ 2 GB ram.
That explains the difference in FPS values :-).
How so? My slower machine is getting 3X faster fps values than my dual-core with twice the ram...
Obviously I am confused... What machine produced what FPS values?
To Gene: This machine (I'm at work, now), is a 2.8 GHz P4 with 1 GB of ram. GLXgears just produced this:
glxgears 21379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4275.750 FPS 30310 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.993 FPS 30308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.511 FPS 30308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.598 FPS 30152 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6030.331 FPS
Pretty good. This is with an NVidia GForce 5500, 256 mb ram, AGP 8X card
That is pretty good. Especially for a 5500. But I don't see any numbers that are a third of this. Where are the numbers from your dual-core system? I see some comparable to these and one set that is in the mid-400 FPS.
Jonathan
On Thu March 1 2007 2:33:15 pm Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 3/1/07, Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
Well, yes, X is crashing - I do know that, but, I haven't been able to figure out why. I did spend some considerable time on the NV forum the night before last, trying to sort it out, but, I'm at the point of having to turn on some logging and let folks look at results, and I haven't had time to get to that yet.
Okay. Well, what has changed from when it was working?
As I stated, I haven't figured it out
But I don't see any numbers that are a third of this. Where are the numbers from your dual-core system? I see some comparable to these and one set that is in the mid-400 FPS.
Could be it's me muddying the waters - it was very early when I posted this am, and I was pretty groggy. I haven't posted any numbers from my home machine in this thread but they're running around ~1000FPS right now (well, up till the problem with X crashing started) - that's the dual-core (not core-duo) w/ 2GB ram. The machine at work is the one turning in the good results
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:13 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Thu March 1 2007 2:33:15 pm Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 3/1/07, Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
Well, yes, X is crashing - I do know that, but, I haven't been able to figure out why. I did spend some considerable time on the NV forum the night before last, trying to sort it out, but, I'm at the point of having to turn on some logging and let folks look at results, and I haven't had time to get to that yet.
Okay. Well, what has changed from when it was working?
As I stated, I haven't figured it out
But I don't see any numbers that are a third of this. Where are the numbers from your dual-core system? I see some comparable to these and one set that is in the mid-400 FPS.
Could be it's me muddying the waters - it was very early when I posted this am, and I was pretty groggy. I haven't posted any numbers from my home machine in this thread but they're running around ~1000FPS right now (well, up till the problem with X crashing started) - that's the dual-core (not core-duo) w/ 2GB ram. The machine at work is the one turning in the good results
I just noticed that mine has gone to Hell. When this thread started I was chuckling over just how well mine was running, BooYah! Now it's shit.
563 frames in 5.3 seconds = 295.924 FPS 1469 frames in 5.0 seconds = 292.530 FPS 1469 frames in 5.1 seconds = 288.545 FPS
Someone just kill me now, another night screwing with stuff that "Worked Previously" (tm) Last night it was the printer again, that "Worked Previously" (tm). With an Nvidia card, (5200+) do I actually need ANYTHING installed that the rpm-name starting with "mesa-"? Any other "Gotchas"(tm)? Ric
On 2/28/07, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jonathan Berry wrote:
[snip]
closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Jonathan
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x
I have an Athlon64 3500+ (2.2 GHz), 2 GB RAM DDR400 dual-channel running 64-bit FC6.
what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent
The driver from Livna (or another repo, if you prefer, I forget which other one has it) is really the better way to go. I'm not sure if things are better now, but be careful if you upgrade anything related to X with the nVidia installer.
driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here.
That's a widescreen format. My LCD panel actually uses that resolution.
But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
A lot of that may be your CPU and RAM. These are a few times faster than the numbers Claude cited at first, which he said were on a 2.66 GHz P4. So this may be about right. Also remember that my 6600 GT is a couple steps better than your 6200.
[snip]
So what do I check next? And, whats all that 'Ncon' stuff telling me?
I do not know anything about the glxinfo output. It looks like things are working to me.
Jonathan
On Thursday 01 March 2007, Jonathan Berry wrote:
On 2/28/07, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jonathan Berry wrote:
[snip]
closely tied to your CPU and other factors. I have a (PNY) 6600 GT with 128 MB Video RAM and I get: (with AIGLX enabled) $ glxgears 19516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3903.179 FPS 28603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5720.504 FPS 27597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5519.237 FPS 28336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5661.658 FPS (without AIGLX) $ glxgears 37436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7487.071 FPS 36616 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7322.496 FPS 37653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7530.581 FPS 36758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7351.457 FPS
Jonathan
And what sort of a cpu etc do you have there? Those figures are about 30x
I have an Athlon64 3500+ (2.2 GHz), 2 GB RAM DDR400 dual-channel running 64-bit FC6.
what I'm getting after using the nvidia installer to put the most recent
The driver from Livna (or another repo, if you prefer, I forget which other one has it) is really the better way to go. I'm not sure if things are better now, but be careful if you upgrade anything related to X with the nVidia installer.
driver in. This card, and I miss-spoke is a 3DForce 6200-256. the nv driver would not even run it as well as the ATI ran, including limiting the resolution to 1440x900, which is a far cry from square pixels here.
That's a widescreen format. My LCD panel actually uses that resolution.
But after I'd installed the nvidia driver, I was back to my usual 1600x1200 and looking good, but, on the XP-2800 Athlon with a gig of 333FSB ram, glxgears, while obviously a heck of a lot smoother, isn't anywhere near that fast:
5939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1187.719 FPS 5969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1193.787 FPS 5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.097 FPS
A lot of that may be your CPU and RAM. These are a few times faster than the numbers Claude cited at first, which he said were on a 2.66 GHz P4.
And I think thats a real clock speed, the xp-2800 is propaganda as its actually running at 2Ghz.
So this may be about right. Also remember that my 6600 GT is a couple steps better than your 6200.
Eiiyyup. This is an improvement, and as long as the installer will keep building a new version like it did this time for a bleeding edge kernel, I'll be relatively happy.
As far as livna, I got tangled up in some earlier livna stuff and had to tie smart in knots to get things back to somewhat normal. So that repo is now turned off.
[snip]
So what do I check next? And, whats all that 'Ncon' stuff telling me?
I do not know anything about the glxinfo output. It looks like things are working to me.
Jonathan
Well, the Ncon part was what I didn't grok. And it is working, stinking the place up with the new pcb burning in smell, but working.
Today Gene Heskett did spake thusly:
A lot of that may be your CPU and RAM. These are a few times faster than the numbers Claude cited at first, which he said were on a 2.66 GHz P4.
And I think thats a real clock speed, the xp-2800 is propaganda as its actually running at 2Ghz.
But it's around as fast as a 2.8ghz P4, hence the name. P4s were poked in a strange way to make their clock speeds "faster" (I believe they had an unneccesarrily long pipeline or something, someone explained it to me once...)
It's why the new (well, after P4 - Centrino) laptop chips had slower clockspeeds yet were loads faster than the old P4s...
The pny 6800 something or other looks good, but nobody has one except direct mail order via circuit city. And pny would probably be the same story as this ati, no support for 3rd party makers.
I'm pretty sure the pny 6800 is equivalent to a nvidia 6800, and you could use either the "free" nv driver or the 3rd party nvidia driver.
Chrid
-
Chris Mohler -
Claude Jones -
Gene Heskett -
Jonathan Berry -
Ric Moore -
Scott van Looy