Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

radeon with DRI2 slower?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kernelOfTruth
    replied
    Originally posted by amphigory View Post
    kernelOfTruth, you are one lucky guy to be in Vienna. I'd give my eye teeth to live there... even though I cannot abide Sachertorte.

    Off-Topic:

    it's probably only half as great when you're living here - not being here as a tourist - but I'm still loving it

    there's really a lot to discover in this city

    I think we'd find something other you'd like than the Sachertorte



    from what I've seen so far Seattle is also a pretty nice city



    On-Topic:

    last time I tried KMS it was significantly slower than non-KMS and still pretty unstable

    reading latest topics it seems to have stabilized significantly,

    now I'll have to wait until 2.6.32 gets ready (rc6+) and fglrx support for 2.6.32 so that I can switch between those two in-case it doesn't work too stable/fast yet

    great work guys !

    Leave a comment:


  • suokko
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Ah, right. Well, that looks almost fine to me except I'm not sure it'd make sense to output extensions by default, that takes quite a lot of space.
    Just out of interest decided to try what would happen if you removed the benchmark trigger. Apparently whole glxgears breaks down...
    Apparently the thing that should be used in any case for this kind of stuff is gears, not glxgears. glxgears contains unportable code (and this might not be possible to fix) for calculating fps whereas gears uses glut for gathering necessary information.
    Lets jsut start to request distributions to ship gears and instead use tunnel or engine They at least take a bit more rendering power from older hardware. They are useless for benchmarking still but a bit better.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Ah, right. Well, that looks almost fine to me except I'm not sure it'd make sense to output extensions by default, that takes quite a lot of space.
    Just out of interest decided to try what would happen if you removed the benchmark trigger. Apparently whole glxgears breaks down...
    Apparently the thing that should be used in any case for this kind of stuff is gears, not glxgears. glxgears contains unportable code (and this might not be possible to fix) for calculating fps whereas gears uses glut for gathering necessary information.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    I was thinking of the "-info" option :

    Code:
       if (printInfo) {
          printf("GL_RENDERER   = %s\n", (char *) glGetString(GL_RENDERER));
          printf("GL_VERSION    = %s\n", (char *) glGetString(GL_VERSION));
          printf("GL_VENDOR     = %s\n", (char *) glGetString(GL_VENDOR));
          printf("GL_EXTENSIONS = %s\n", (char *) glGetString(GL_EXTENSIONS));
       }

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Code:
    #define BENCHMARK
    
    #ifdef BENCHMARK
    
    /* XXX this probably isn't very portable */
    ...
    You mean this?
    ps. I don't honestly know why code that code is enabled instead of removed since the authors well know that it's platform-dependent and useless.
    Last edited by nanonyme; 20 September 2009, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Or we could redisable the fps counter and have it instead output useful stuff like OpenGL renderer. (like most of the other demos do)
    I think there's an option for that already.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    EDIT - I guess in the meantime we could tweak glxgears to add an option to make it at least vaguely useful as a benchmark, by drawing the gears 50 times between calls to glXSwapBuffers or something. It would still suck (if only because every draw would have the same Z values) but would definitely suck less.
    Or we could redisable the fps counter and have it instead output useful stuff like OpenGL renderer. (like most of the other demos do)

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Actually, I just noticed that the site has been updated very recently and includes numbers for 5xx and 6xx hardware as well. There is a FAQ that states pretty clearly that they understand glxgears is not a good benchmark, so that's a start.

    Oh well... that's the curse of the internet. Anyone who makes the effort to put up a big collection of useful information ends up getting abuse a couple of years later when the world has changed but their information has become the canonical reference for anyone searching for answers. Retesting everything would be a big task, even with glxgears, but maybe one or two lines at the start of the page might be a good compromise.

    EDIT - I guess in the meantime we could tweak glxgears to add an option to make it at least vaguely useful as a benchmark, by drawing the gears 50 times between calls to glXSwapBuffers or something. It would still suck (if only because every draw would have the same Z values) but would definitely suck less.
    Last edited by bridgman; 20 September 2009, 11:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    In fairness the free3d site was most active a few years ago when it was harder to find real world apps you could run across a broad range of drivers. It does desperately need to be updated though...
    I tried. It's run by people who refuse to budge a bit in changing the site and are firm believers in that glxgears fps is meaningful. Better just avoid it altogether.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    In fairness the free3d site was most active a few years ago when it was harder to find real world apps you could run across a broad range of drivers. It does desperately need to be updated though...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X