Jan Schmidt wrote: > Keith, > > I'm looking to understand the behaviour I'm seeing since I installed > the main branch today. > > With the default settings, and glxgears, I see: > r200CreateScreen > 1077 frames in 5.0 seconds = 215.400 FPS > > (Previously, I'd see around 300FPS for software rendering, and ~1500FPS for > TCL)
Why do you even care about software rasterization? In normal use the card basically never does this. > If I set R200_NO_USLEEPS, I see: > r200CreateScreen > 13368 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2673.600 FPS For people who care about gears results, R200_NO_USLEEPS is what you should be doing. There is code in the newest r200 driver that uses irq's to do the same thing that the old busy waits used to, but (see yesterday's thread) there is a bug & I had to disable it. When that bug is fixed, you should get good gears numbers *and* low cpu utilization without any env. vars. > In q3, the difference (at 1280x1024, max settings) is around 9FPS... from > 71FPS to 82FPS > > So, I'm looking to understand why the standard glxgears now renders slower > than software fallbacks used to, and why now when I use R200_NO_RAST I only > see 50FPS in glxgears Because the usleep takes up a longer time than it takes your cpu to draw a frame of gears via software rasterization. Keith ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
