On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Malcolm Stevens wrote:
I know I run the risk of bugging you too much but this should be the
last for now. I did some experimenting with the hardware acceleration
setup and found that the ScreenToScreenCopy is the problem but only if
the window gets large enough. In the Cadence tools, this screen to
screen copy seems to provide the largest speedup until the window gets
larger than about 1000x1000. After that point the performance goes off
a cliff and is much much worse than unaccelerated (completely
unusable). In windows less than about 1000x100, the performance is
much better with the screen to screen copy enabled. This is in 4.3.0
with the latest code from CVS for nv directory. I retried 4.2.1 with
similar results.
I'm not seeing any performance problems moving 1920x1440 xterms around with the "nv" driver over here on GeForce2 MX. It would be good to know what Cadence is actually doing there. There is obviously more going on than just blitting large windows around.
Mark.
Just one more thing - at 8 bits depth everything is at least as fast as I've come to expect on sun hardware at 24 bits depth. Can't try 16 because the software will only run on 8 bit pseudocolor or 24 bit truecolor. Window size issue is very strange. Just for kicks I tried running the software remotely on a sun, displaying on my linux box and saw the same results.
Expecting a 2nd linux box soon with an ati card. Maybe I'll have better luck with that.
Thanks for all your help, Malcolm
Thanks, Malcolm
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
I've just tried these modes on my GeForce2 MX:
2048x1536 @ 60 Hz (266.9 MHz) 1920x1440 @ 60 Hz (234.0 MHz)
and both worked fine with the "nv" driver for me. You're saying they work fine for you in the "nvidia" driver but not "nv"? Are they the same refresh rate in both cases? Note that your monitor claims it doesn't have enough bandwidth for either of these modes (max 210 pixel clock).
oc(II) NV(0): Ranges: V min: 48 V max: 160 Hz, H min: 30 H max: 121 kHz, PixClk max 210 MHz
I could see the case where the "nvidia" driver would lower the
refresh rate automatically because of that but the "nv" driver
wouldn't.
The ghosting you are describing is typical of the monitor or
monitor cable not being able to support such high frequencies, leading
to artifacts. My monitor claims to have 250 MHz bandwidth. It
looks OK in both these modes.
Mark.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Malcolm Stevens wrote:
Regarding: nv driver misbehaves on geforce 2 MX @ greater than 1600x1200 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
