Hi guys,
On Wednesday, 26. November 2003 18:54, you wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:51, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Maw, 2003-11-25 at 20:26, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > * Our drivers do something which makes newer chips perform
> > > very poorly with PCI GART, be they AGP or PCI
> > >
> > > Th
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:51, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2003-11-25 at 20:26, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > * Our drivers do something which makes newer chips perform very
> > poorly with PCI GART, be they AGP or PCI
> >
> > The former wouldn't necessarily say anything about PCI cards, but
> Can you try ATI's binary drivers for Linux, or are you not on x86?
ATI's FireGL drivers do not support PCI cards, lord knows I tried.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more prod
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Ian Romanick wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that anything that did that for PCI would also do it for
> AGP. I assume that would kill performance even more, yes?
>
> Could somebody with an actual PCI card try this with ATI's driver? If
> the performance is okay there, tha
> Can you try ATI's binary drivers for Linux, or are you not on x86?
ATI's FireGL drivers do not support PCI cards, lord knows I tried.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more produ
Chris Ison wrote:
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Ian Romanick wrote:
I'm pretty sure that anything that did that for PCI would also do it for
AGP. I assume that would kill performance even more, yes?
Could somebody with an actual PCI card try this with ATI's driver? If
the performance is okay t
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Ian Romanick wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that anything that did that for PCI would also do it for
> AGP. I assume that would kill performance even more, yes?
>
> Could somebody with an actual PCI card try this with ATI's driver? If
> the performance is okay there, tha
Alan Cox wrote:
On Maw, 2003-11-25 at 20:26, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
* Our drivers do something which makes newer chips perform very
poorly with PCI GART, be they AGP or PCI
The former wouldn't necessarily say anything about PCI cards, but I'm
not sure how to determine which it is (and wh
On Maw, 2003-11-25 at 20:26, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> * Our drivers do something which makes newer chips perform very
> poorly with PCI GART, be they AGP or PCI
>
> The former wouldn't necessarily say anything about PCI cards, but I'm
> not sure how to determine which it is (and what e
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 00:45, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
> Results (AXP 1600, 9000pro, 1GB sdram, KT133A Chipset):
> glxgears QuakeIII (1024x768, graphic options all set to high)
> AGP 4x 1910 62.5
> AGP 1x 1860 61.1
> PCI 200 16.8
I've seen similarly pathetic
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
I'm really not sure about this, but I believe there could be a severe
performance problem when using pci radeons (at least on x86). I haven't
seen any measurements of this, and few people seem to have such hardware.
But by using the "BusType" option, I've forced pci mod
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 09:45, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Results (AXP 1600, 9000pro, 1GB sdram, KT133A Chipset):
> glxgears QuakeIII (1024x768, graphic options all set to high)
> AGP 4x 1910 62.5
> AGP 1x 1860 61.1
> PCI 200 16.8
My radeon 9000 PCI (with 64megs
Chris Ison wrote:
Its the same situation in GL apps (which I did mention, I only used
glxgears as the prime example cause it should be heeps faster
considering it doesn't do texturing).
In general I agree. However, it does usefully suggest that Chris isn't
getting hardware acceleration. He need
On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 23:54, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> What do you get with "glxinfo"?
name of display: :0.0
display: :0 screen: 0
direct rendering: Yes
server glx vendor string: SGI
server glx version string: 1.2
server glx extensions:
GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_ra
First of all a big "hello again"...;-)
Am Sonntag, 23. November 2003 15:26 schrieb Chris Ison:
> Its the same situation in GL apps (which I did mention, I only used
> glxgears as the prime example cause it should be heeps faster
> considering it doesn't do texturing).
>
> > In general I agree. Ho
Its the same situation in GL apps (which I did mention, I only used
glxgears as the prime example cause it should be heeps faster
considering it doesn't do texturing).
> In general I agree. However, it does usefully suggest that Chris isn't
> getting hardware acceleration. He needs to find out
Jacek Popławski wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 04:55:37PM +1000, Chris Ison wrote:
celeron 500 pc)and glxgears only gives me 250fps on average, and openGL
IMHO glxgears should not be used as real benchmark. Try at least something with
textures and any effects like fog.
In general I agree. Howev
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 04:55:37PM +1000, Chris Ison wrote:
> celeron 500 pc)and glxgears only gives me 250fps on average, and openGL
IMHO glxgears should not be used as real benchmark. Try at least something with
textures and any effects like fog.
--
Free Software - find interesting programs an
I am wondering if there is any env variables or host.def lines I can add
that will improve performance of DRI. I have a radeon 9000 PCI (in a
celeron 500 pc)and glxgears only gives me 250fps on average, and openGL
applications only perform a little better than they did with the voodoo2
(in a p200 p
19 matches
Mail list logo