On Friday 31 January 2003 10:10 am, FemmeFatale wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 07:59, Ronald J. Hall wrote: > > Okay, I've got 2 systems here I'm looking at: > > > > > > Now I know that GLXGears is not the best thing in the world to use for a > > comparison, but the results surprised me: > > > > 2600fps 2200fps > > > > Why would the system in column 1 outperform (video wise) the machine in > > the 2nd column? It seems like it would be the other way around? (could > > the drivers make that much of a difference?) > > > > Thanks! :-) > > > > -- > > > > /\ > > Dark< >Lord > > \/ > > Drivers & one is a duron. Effectively a neutered AMD Chipset. Or so > goes my semi-educated guess. > > Femme
glxgears is DEPENDENT on size of screen for performance. Make sure both screens have the same resolution and color depth, then run glxgears from an Eterm and full size the glxgears screen, wait 3 minutes then kill it and you should have a fps record for the full-size performance Then we will need hardware info to clear up the rest of the mystery, if any remains. Civileme
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
