On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?!
> > >
> >
> > Or, even better, 4.0.2 + "suppose-we-managed-to-port-it nvidia kernel
> > module" + nvidia binary 'nvidia' replacement module for XFree-4's 'nv'
> > driver? I mean, will 336/utah be better??
>
> No, nvidia's binary driver would be (a lot) faster.
>
> The Utah-GLX one doesn't direct render which slows it down a lot. (All the GL
> commands go through the X pipe)
That's what I thought, but Jordan's email really made me doubt that my
vision of things is correct. Particulary, I don't quite understand this
one:
Statement #1: Utah-GLX doesn't direct render
Statement #2: From man nv(4) of XFree-4.0.2- "The driver is fully
accelerated, and provides support..."
Thus far, it seems that based on these two statements, 336/utah (taking
into account that 1) it is somewhat older technology; 2) XFree86-4.0.2
driver is in fact native nvidia's software render driver (providing
non-direct rendering 3D acceleration of OpenGL) released as OpenSource
(http://www.nvidia.com/Products/OpenLinuxDwn.nsf/XFree86335)) should be at
its best as fast as X4 'nv' driver (included in X4 core distribution), and
probably even slower. That's what my common sense says :-)
So, considering all the above, I don't quite understand "at least 2X the
frame rate using the same OpenGL app", speaking Jordan's words.
I'm probably missing something here, and I'm very eager to find my way
out :-)
Actually, there's one more question I have about XFree-4. IIUC, core GL
libs, such as libGL.so, libOSMesa.so, etc are included in XFree 4.0.2 core
distribution. So how come that lots of applications still have Mesa-3.2
in their dependencies?
10x.
--
WBR
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
