> > I missed that thread, actually... are you talking about the > r200WaitForFrameCompletion one, or somewhere else?
Yes. > >>>So, I'm looking to understand why the standard glxgears now renders slower >>>than software fallbacks used to, and why now when I use R200_NO_RAST I only >>>see 50FPS in glxgears >>> >>Because the usleep takes up a longer time than it takes your cpu to draw a >>frame of gears via software rasterization. >> >> > > OK, this makes sense for why it would be limited to 200FPS, but it doesn't > explain why R200_NO_RAST now yields 50FPS, does it? I have got the right env > var, havent I? (ie R200_NO_RAST makes it do no hardware accel?) Yes. If you want to investigate the performance of this code feel free, but it almost never gets used. Keith ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
