Hello! On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:30:47PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Sunday 19 October 2003 11:02, Andrew Kirilenko wrote: > > glxgears gives me about 650 FPS (1152x864 24bpp) default glxears window > > size. But when I'm totally covering glxgears win with xterm I'm getting > > 8000 FPS (that's expected :) and when I'm covering only very small part > > of green gear with xterm, I'm getting about 1500-1600 FPS (and that's > > strange). Next, when maximizing window to fullscreen, it shows about 72 > > FPS, but gears SEEMS to rotate much quickly. Can somebody explain me > > this behaivor? > > Your brain can't interpret images at much more than 120fps and you're monitor > can only output at about the same or less. At 72fps is looks like the gears > are actually turning. At 650fps or 1600fps you're only seeing every 5th or > 10th or 15th frame of what the computer is actually calculating and putting > into video memory. Yes, yes, yes. I understand this. But what if I'd start some complex opengl app? I'm not sure it'll provide me with 20-30 FPS while simple glxgears (not SO simple, but simple enough) provides me only with 700. I'm emerging tuxracer for test this right now (it's the best opengl testing app, I know).
BTW. For ATI / NV discussion - my prefference is ATI because: - better open drivers support (and almost the same quality closed support as in NV) - __MUCH__ better 2D - if you want fast 3D - ATI is the best (I have got my radeon 9100 for about $110 about 4 months ago and it supports... hmm... pixel shaders e.g.). NV card with the same capatibilities will cost about $150. > BTW, you're lucky to get 8000fps off-screen. I get ~550fps at regular size, > ~75fps at full-screen (1024x768x24) and only ~1550 at regular size > off-screen. Probably due to lack of DRM-support of nvidias? or is that just > wishful thinking ;-) > Best regards, Andrew. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
