AMD 8.40.4 Driver -- One Bug A Day Keeps AIGLX Away

[Xipeos]

8.40.4 broke Google Earth for me (it freezes at the splash screen) but fixed the
Xv-crashing-X-if-window-starts-behind-an-always-on-top-window problem.

Nasty trade

[xploited]

till new driver only option is to install XP or Vista. If the new driver will only introduce HD support i will go to ATI HQ and detonate myselfe

There's no way I am buying vista dude =)
I will probably double boot XP & SUSE 10.2 so far...
Do you think I could run beryl or compiz on suse with the current ATI driver on my x1400 video card?
Thanks

[Michael]

Do you think I could run beryl or compiz on suse with the current ATI driver on my x1400 video card?

Not unless using XGL, otherwise hardware-wise it is fine.

[xploited]

what kind of fps in glxgears could I most optimistically hope for?

[Alistair]

Hm, it seems that for the 9550, you pasted in glxgears twice. But still, it makes much of the point of comparison between the different cards.

You are utterly correct: thus


correction:

8.40 - ati 9550 card

glxgears:
alistair@ajftl1 ~ $ glxgears
8982 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1796.162 FPS
9357 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1871.383 FPS
9636 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1927.183 FPS
10028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2005.268 FPS
9740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1947.983 FPS
9561 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1911.855 FPS
11013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2202.580 FPS


fgl_flglxgears:
1680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 336.000 FPS
2087 frames in 5.0 seconds = 417.400 FPS
2088 frames in 5.0 seconds = 417.600 FPS
2074 frames in 5.0 seconds = 414.800 FPS
2080 frames in 5.0 seconds = 416.000 FPS
2072 frames in 5.0 seconds = 414.400 FPS
2079 frames in 5.0 seconds = 415.800 FPS


8.40 ati - X1650 Pro
glxgears:
5409 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1081.720 FPS
5429 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1085.727 FPS
5433 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1086.592 FPS
5430 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1085.930 FPS
5428 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1085.560 FPS
5412 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1082.339 FPS

fgl_fglxgears
2026 frames in 5.0 seconds = 405.200 FPS
2025 frames in 5.0 seconds = 405.000 FPS
2023 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.600 FPS
2024 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.800 FPS
2024 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.800 FPS
2023 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.600 FPS


To that end I've also opened bug 780 on the ati.cchtml.com bugsite: I think I've provided substantial reason to look at it as a bug in the driver.

Hope so at least.

[Alistair]

8.40.4 broke Google Earth for me (it freezes at the splash screen) but fixed the
Xv-crashing-X-if-window-starts-behind-an-always-on-top-window problem.

Nasty trade

Googleearth has locked up on startup for me since I went 64 bit ... never been sure where the issue lay.

[Svartalf]

Googleearth has locked up on startup for me since I went 64 bit ... never been sure where the issue lay.

It'd very probably be the drivers- ATI's stuff isn't exactly the best in the world in 64-bits. It was one of the things that forced me back into the 32-bit world on my Athlon64 laptop- even if it was slower by a bit, it was more stable with 3D graphics and it didn't boggle on me as often or as bad in 32-bit mode with fglrx...

[partha]

Googleearth has locked up on startup for me since I went 64 bit ... never been sure where the issue lay.

If you are using x86_64 and getting a lockup with Googleearth, I have documented this on my website. This has to do with the version of libGL. Take a look at my website at this page:

http://www.partha.com/graphics-ati-02-cont.html

Hope that helps you,

Partha

https://www.partha.com

[Alistair]

If you are using x86_64 and getting a lockup with Googleearth, I have documented this on my website. This has to do with the version of libGL. Take a look at my website at this page:

http://www.partha.com/graphics-ati-02-cont.html

Hope that helps you,

Partha
www.partha.com

Nice trick, no joy for me tho - I have the same (8.32) drivers on disk too -- no such luck for me -

[Alistair]

Yet more on the X1650Pro AGP saga

A thought occurred to me from the way back bad ole days -- and I looked up pciids for X1650 Pro cards (there are a variety of lists out there this is the one I used pciids.sourceforge.net/iii/?i=1002 ) It appears that a) my pci id is NOT on the list (0x71C1) and there is no default definition of agp vs pcie that I can see for pciids.

However it rather appears that xorg and fglrxdrm ignore the

Option "ChipID" "0x71C6"

line I put in to see if I could manipulate the behaviour that way.

Any ideas on what may/might/could replace said option????