X11perf reportedly is able to benchmark 2-d performance. would the r128 frame buffer kernel module be accelerrated? (included with 2.4)
- David Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: Lightstatic On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Michael D. Crawford wrote: > Whether or not you get accelleration in the fbdev depends on whether the > framebuffer driver you're using supports it, and whether you enable it as a > kernel option when you boot your machine. > > On the x86, the VESA2 framebuffer driver is easy to set up but does not have > accelleration. > > My compaq laptop uses the Mach64 chip. This is documented to be accellerated, > but when I try to use it, the most spectacular thing happens to the LCD > screen, > it looks like someone is taking a blowtorch to it from the back. It gives on > the urge to turn the power off, and quickly. > > I am not entirely certain that XFree86 uses framebuffer accelleration if it is > available though. But I would suspect that r128 is probably the one where > framebuffer accelleration is most likely to work. > > Note that there are two kinds of accelleration to consider, 2D and 3D. 2D > accelleration speeds up conventional X drawing, like drawing lines as vectors > rather than as a sequence of pixels. 3D accelleration requires that you get > DRI > working. Most people have an easier time getting 2D accelleration working > than > #d accelleration. > > Here's a question - what's a good way to make a simple benchmark of 2D > accelleration? For 3D, most people usually report the framerate of glxgears, > or > for more in-depth testing, quake running in demo mode. But I haven't found a > simple way to test 2D accelleration. > > Mike > -- > Michael D. Crawford > GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting > http://www.goingware.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
