On Tue, 2005-19-04 at 11:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:27:02PM -0400, Preet Khalsa wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-19-04 at 02:55 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 03:38:53PM -0700, Big Wave Dave wrote: > > > > On 4/18/05, Brandon Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > MythTV is often compiled with no support for MMX or anything > > > > > more than pentium pro optimization. If you didn't enable > > > > > processor specific optimization and mmx, and opengl when doing > > > > > a ./configure then this could have the bad effect. I haven't > > > > > noticed much if any CPU change between .17 and .18 (Granted I > > > > > run out of CVS) so I'd check that first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know how the ATRpms are compiled, in this respect? > > > > > > Depends on the distribution, for FC3 they are tuned for pentium4. > > > > Does this mean I should compile Myth for the x86_64 (AMD64) instead of > > just using the binaries? (yes I did get the x86_664 version) > > Oh no, sorry. The x86_64 packages are of course not optimized for > pentium4, gcc would bail out if told so. Here are the typical > optimization flags for x86 archs and compatibles on FC3 packages: >
<snip> > You can rebuild the packages with different optflags, if you like, to > see whether there is any difference. Note that on x86_64 MMX in mythtv > does not compile, so you will see a considerable performance drop wrt > i386. Perhaps trying the i386 packages would not be a bad idea. That is an interesting idea. Maybe that is the solution. I have been trying to avoid i386 on this machine but had to relent for OpenOffice and Firefox. My only question about this is how the nvidia drivers relate. I have the x86_64 version of the drivers and I wonder how Myth can handle that. Particularly for XvMC. Thanks Axel!
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
