>> Allen Akin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most consumer-level hardware doesn't support the esoteric functions
> in the pixel path, but there's no hardware reason for the most common
> case (data format matches the window pixel format; no scale/bias,
> convolutions, scaling, etc.) to be slow
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 22:52, Michel Daenzer wrote:
> Log message:
> flush indirect buffer in the BlockHandler
>
> Modified files:
> xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/:
> r128_driver.c
I just noticed that the radeon driver doesn't do this yet - does it work
well with
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:09:47PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Very little consumer hardware provides support for the operations
> > necessary to implement much of drawpixels anyway.
>
> Could you please elaborate on this? As someon
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:09:47PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
| Is it really a pure hardware problem? Rumors on comp.graphics.opengl
| are that the vendors don't invest time optimizing that path (in the
| driver) because there's not much demand for it. ...
Most consumer-level hardware
>> Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Very little consumer hardware provides support for the operations
> necessary to implement much of drawpixels anyway.
Could you please elaborate on this? As someone who has suffered
because of poor glDrawPixels and glReadPixels performance in
Michael Zayats wrote:
>
> what about glPixelsZoom? I would have been very pleased to see it hardware
> accelerated...
>
when the pixmap wont change i would load it as a texture
and draw it as a quad.
if its changing use gltexsubimage to update it. i dont think its a
special path
for the 810 dr
> The DMA buffers and the frame buffer are in
> a
> > unified memory pool, so it isn't any quicker to put the data into DMA
and
> > then have hardware upload it. Very little consumer hardware provides
> support
> > for the operations necessary to implement much of drawpixels anyway.
what about
so what approach should be faster: just Xlib or DrawPixels + DRI?
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] glDrawPixels on i810
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:06, you wrote:
> > -
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:06, you wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Regard Inbox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] glDrawPixels on i810
>
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 07:50, Re
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Regard Inbox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] glDrawPixels on i810
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 07:50, Regard Inbox wrote:
> > Does current i810 drm acce
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 07:50, Regard Inbox wrote:
> Does current i810 drm accelerate 2D path?
>
No.
Keith
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
___
Dri-devel
Does current i810 drm accelerate 2D path?
I get about 6mln pps in drawpix :(
Michael
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
On Sat, 2001-09-29 at 18:41, Steven P. Lilly wrote:
> I just installed Slackware 8 with XFree86 4.1.0 and I've come across some
> weirdness with glxgears. When I'm running a window manager everything is
> fine but when I don't run a window manager I get a much higher frame rate
> but what I see is
13 matches
Mail list logo
