Gareth Hughes wrote: > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > Gareth Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>That's probably more of a rasterization/fill test than a T&L test, so > >>it's not surprising there isn't a more significant increase. > >> > > > > What tests do you recommend? > > Pretty much all of the Mesa/GLUT demos are pointless these days for > measuring T&L performance. Enlarging the window to these sizes makes > them a fill test, and not a very good one at that :-) > > For real T&L performance measurements, you need to look at things like > viewperf, maybe glperf, things like that. You basically need a > polygonal model with 100K+ triangles before it gets interesting. Even > then, you have to be careful about things like data submission and so > on, to ensure you're really testing T&L performance and not AGP > bandwidth, rasterization throughput etc.
Certainly all of the t&l tests are also AGP bandwidth tests at the moment - we don't yet store display lists on card or even agp memory. Keith _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
