Michael wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 11:53:19PM +0000, Michael wrote: > > At the moment 1024x768 (which I expected to get the biggest benefit) > > hits lack of texture space and/or maybe depth clears / lack of > > hierarchical z, even with the pixmap cache set to 1 page and low > > texturing - at the mo this is still only a 2 or 3 fps gain there. > > Actually this is very strange. > > If I run X at 640x480, 800x600 or 1280x1024 I get about 86.5 fps with > q3demo running @ 640x480 (86.5 because I've got debug code to print out > the total texture size which was 5mb so that's not an issue) > > If I run X at 1024x768 (q3 still at 640x480) I only get ~76.5??? > > Testing a bit more, if I run q3 @ 1024x768 when X is 1024x768 I get about > 36.3fps, but with X @ 1280x1024, q3@1024x768 gives me 59.8 (probably > 60+ if I took out the fprintf) > > Is this just me?
This might be a long shot, but try limiting your texture memory to a constant value for the various screen sizes, and see what happens. I recall from my operating systems class many years ago that there's an anomaly (Balady's anomaly, I think) where if you increase the number of page of physical memory available to a process it can actually cause an increase in the number of page faults, depending on the memory access pattern. Perhaps a similar thing is happening with textures in the first case you describe. Probably a long shot though. -Brian _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
