Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the expected fps reading from glxgears?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    What is the expected fps reading from glxgears?

    Hi,

    I have a HD 4650 connected to a 1920x1200 LCD monitor, running with fglrx 9.3. The 4650 is installed within a docking station whose PCIe slot is only capable of x1. Upgrading to a later version of fglrx is impossible unless I want to kill my laptop's video when I undock it.

    The HD 4650 plays World of Warcraft in OpenGL mode, but at such a distressingly low frame rate (< 20fps outside the bank in Ironforge) that I tried something really simple like running glxgears. glxgears gives me ~1000fps, which is considerably lower than I was expecting for RV730 hardware. (Come to think of it, the 2D desktop behaviour isn't particularly amazing either.)

    I was expecting the PCIe x1 slot to cause some loss in performance, but this looks beyond what I had in mind. Is this "correct" behaviour for this hardware/driver combination, please? Does anyone have any similar hardware for comparison?

    Thanks,
    Chris

    P.S. I have tried attaching my HD 4650 to my TV via a S-Video cable, but when I do this the S-Video automatically becomes the primary display and sets the resolution for both monitors to 1024x768. Is there any way for the LCD monitor to become "Display1" instead?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Originally posted by chrisr View Post
    glxgears gives me ~1000fps, which is considerably lower than I was expecting for RV730 hardware.
    Glxgears is not a benchmark.

    Comment

    • #3
      Thanks for that, nanonyme

      Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
      Glxgears is not a benchmark.
      No it's not. But a) everyone has it, b) it's quick and easy to run, and c) its performance is related to both the graphics hardware and driver implementation. So if people with similar hardware are getting disimilar results then that would merit further investigation.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by chrisr View Post
        No it's not. But a) everyone has it, b) it's quick and easy to run, and c) its performance is related to both the graphics hardware and driver implementation. So if people with similar hardware are getting disimilar results then that would merit further investigation.
        In that respect, it's a very rough diagnostic. If there's a huge difference, it might indicate a configuration problem. That kind of use is uncontroversial. However, pretty big differences (even 2x or more) have been known to occur between different working configurations without anything close to a proportional effect on actual application performance.

        As for the performance being related to "both the graphics hardware and driver implementation", part of the problem is that it's also related to color depth, window size, CPU load, number of running processes, compositor configuration, kernel configuration, and so on. 1000FPS is the right order of magnitude; trying to pin things down closer than that is pretty pointless and tells you nothing about how real applications will run.

        Comment

        • #5
          Then suggest a better measure

          Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
          1000FPS is the right order of magnitude; trying to pin things down closer than that is pretty pointless and tells you nothing about how real applications will run.
          Perhaps you would care to suggest an alternative, then? Maybe a relevant subset of x11perf tests, since (I believe) the R700 series uses 3D hardware for 2D acceleration?

          Comment

          • #6
            Benchmarking
            http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Benchmarking


            The openarena benchmark is my personal favorite.

            Adam

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by chrisr View Post
              No it's not. But a) everyone has it, b) it's quick and easy to run, and c) its performance is related to both the graphics hardware and driver implementation. So if people with similar hardware are getting disimilar results then that would merit further investigation.
              Well, you can easily get thousand or more fps in glxgears by buying a faster CPU so meh. Seriously, rather run any game as a benchmark.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                1000FPS is the right order of magnitude; trying to pin things down closer than that is pretty pointless and tells you nothing about how real applications will run.
                With modern PC hardware 300fps-30000fps is probably the right order of magnitude... There is no normal ratio for a single card, just what a particular computer setup manages to do. We're talking about a (mostly, motherboard bandwidths and memory bandwidths probably play their part too) CPU-bound technical demo, not a GPU benchmark.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by chrisr View Post
                  Perhaps you would care to suggest an alternative, then? Maybe a relevant subset of x11perf tests, since (I believe) the R700 series uses 3D hardware for 2D acceleration?
                  x11perf is not recommended:
                  On 2D Performance Measurement
                  http://cworth.org/intel/performance_measurement/

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Several times now I've seen someone broadcasting something about catalyst 9-10. But I only see 9-8 at AMD's site. How are you getting 9-10?

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 template Next
                    Working...
                    X