>
> 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 50FP
> Why do you even care about software rasterization? In normal use the card
> basically never does this.
Only because I remember the numbers from when DRI has not been set up
properly, and I get suspicious when DRI runs slower than the software
rendering.
> There is code in the newest r200 dri
Jan Schmidt wrote:
> Keith,
>
> I'm looking to understand the behaviour I'm seeing since I installed
> the main branch today.
>
> With the default settings, and glxgears, I see:
> r200CreateScreen
> 1077 frames in 5.0 seconds = 215.400 FPS
>
> (Previously, I'd see around 300FPS for software ren
Keith,
I'm looking to understand the behaviour I'm seeing since I installed
the main branch today.
With the default settings, and glxgears, I see:
r200CreateScreen
1077 frames in 5.0 seconds = 215.400 FPS
(Previously, I'd see around 300FPS for software rendering, and ~1500FPS for
TCL)
If I set
