On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:19:33PM +1000, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> I completely disagree. It sounds like software (indirect) rendering is
> being used, as I get well over 800 frames a second with a V3 and over
> 1600 fps with a V5 (single chip only) on my 1GHz Athlon. Frankly,
> there's stuff in Glide that beats the pants off anything else we do, so
> saying "Glide 3 is not exactly fast in Linux" is just plain incorrect.
In that case we should both be very disappointed. =(
My experience is that Glide 2 outperforms Glide 3 by about 10%. Both are
substantially slower than win32 counterparts. Unless it was DRI that was
slowing things down (possible - I wasn't using CVS versions at the time),
but then Glide 3 demos available 3dfx were also kinda sluggish.
> I was getting ~1400 fps with my Radeon on a 600MHz Duron (ASUS A7V,
> KT133 chipset), even with AGP 1x. Something's going horribly wrong with
> your system...
What else is new? I'm rather amazed I got it working at all to be honest.
There seem to be some really nasty bugs somewhere with my particular
combination of hardware. I don't know what they are, and nothing I've
done so far has given me a lead I can follow.
At this point I'm just hoping that someone else stumbles across it or I
can find a way to get some kind of alternate console set up. Until then I
don't know of anything I can do to help fix the problem. I don't pretend
to know anything about X itself - I just use it (and write code which
talks to it.) If there is something else I can do, please let me know as
until whatever is wrong gets fixed, developing QuakeForge is essentially
impossible. Given the rather large investment in the new machine
specifically for the purpose, I'm rather frustrated to not be able to use
it really at all after more than two weeks of trying now.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
"Nominal fee". What an ugly sentence. It's one of those things that
implies that if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
-- Linus Torvalds
PGP signature
