# On 26-May-2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Me and my friend run glxgears with 1024x768 and 16bpp.
# Patrick, I compiled dri cvs, so it doesn't matter what version of xfree 4.3
# 4.4 etc I have. And dri was enabled, as you could see from attached file.
#
# Okay, that gets us somewhere. DRI
I have compiled savage dri (included mesa and also drm) cvs. With glxgears I
get
267 fps. According to glxinfo dri is working. I use via-agp module.
My friend has also savage. He gets 390fps! He uses intel-agp module.
Why so big difference? Who is developing those agp drivers? Are there any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have compiled savage dri (included mesa and also drm) cvs. With glxgears I
get
267 fps. According to glxinfo dri is working. I use via-agp module.
My friend has also savage. He gets 390fps! He uses intel-agp module.
Why so big difference? Who is developing those agp
On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:47:46 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have compiled savage dri (included mesa and also drm) cvs. With glxgears I
get
267 fps. According to glxinfo dri is working. I use via-agp module.
You have a ProSavage chip which has a lower memory bandwidth than e.g. a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# My Computer:
# aspire laptop +1600xp, via motherboard, savage twister (8d02),
2.6.6
# kernel
# xfree log attached with this mail.
#
# It's hard to know what is causing the performance difference
without
# knowing what both computers are. Is your
This may be unrelated, but what version of Xfree? 4.3.0 contains the
first version of the savage driver, which imo is quite horrible
compaired to the second version. (Its so bad, that the vesa 2D driver is
faster than the savage 2D driver.) So, if you're doing a comparison
between 4.3.0 and an X
