[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Changed in: xserver-xorg-video-intel Importance: Unknown = High -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 Title: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Changed in: xserver-xorg-video-intel Importance: High = Unknown -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 Title: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
This page was last modified on 20 May 2009, at 14:08. 2-Year old page bro! Even the radeon driver has matured significatly since then. On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:31 AM, actionparsnip andrew.woodhead...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd just like to add: http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark-- Without fear we must walk forward and without doubt we must not look back. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 Title: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I'd just like to add: http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 Title: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Hi friend it’s looking a nice informative post in this blog . Thanks and like to share my thought here. a href=http://www.xigmapro.com/e-commerce-website-design-and-development/;Ecommerce Website Design Company/a -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
this is not only for intel drivers 804.3 hardy lspci|grep VGA 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UniChrome Pro IGP (rev 01) this just hit me over the last week webcam is giving me 1.2 fps -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Figured I'd make an update. Mesa git fixed some issues for me. unreal tournament isn't hoping around anymore. Actually is pretty smooth now. Blender's latest available build still renders outside the container window but some of the glitches were fixed. You still can't see the selection window. L ate r On 8/4/09, Jerry McCarthy salemb...@gmail.com wrote: http://anholt.livejournal.com/41306.html ()_- [ We do use ut2004. It does stutter with 2.6.31rc (unstable code) due to a performance improvement that requires a Mesa fix to avoid the stuttering. The Mesa fix has been undergoing review.]-_() }-._ He never mentions the fix. I haven't had time to look through the intel forums to find the thread with the discussion. Observations-_ Use of the rc kernels is a bad idea. You risk loosing functionality. Best practice would be to use 2.6.29 and back-port all the GEM revisions. ( compare the two kernels and copy source files from one to the other ) I used to do this a lot. To me 2.6.24 was the best so I'd port back all the junk I liked in the newer kernels. It's time consuming but worth it if you want to keep everything going. Think Red Hat here. Below is what I have: 1.mesa-git/glew-git 2.linux-2.6.31rc5 3.xf86-video-intel-2.8.0 Not much of an improvement. -- it's worst than that he's dead jim, dead jim dead jim. Bones looking at the intel driver. On 8/4/09, Tom Chiverton bugs.launchpad@falkensweb.com wrote: Quote from Storm's URL : within Mesa there are regressions where we could not even complete OpenGL tests with the current Karmic stack that had run fine under Ubuntu 9.04. Although it says the stack has less glitches, which is at least some improvement. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of a duplicate bug. Status in X.org xf86-video-intel: Invalid Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in “xserver-xorg-video-intel” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in linux in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Status in xserver-xorg-video-intel in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Bug description: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance issues on Intel is available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe. Philip K. Dick -- You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Just for info: Intel Linux Graphics On Ubuntu Still Flaky http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=intel_q309_flakesnum=3 -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Quote from Storm's URL : within Mesa there are regressions where we could not even complete OpenGL tests with the current Karmic stack that had run fine under Ubuntu 9.04. Although it says the stack has less glitches, which is at least some improvement. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
http://anholt.livejournal.com/41306.html ()_- [ We do use ut2004. It does stutter with 2.6.31rc (unstable code) due to a performance improvement that requires a Mesa fix to avoid the stuttering. The Mesa fix has been undergoing review.]-_() }-._ He never mentions the fix. I haven't had time to look through the intel forums to find the thread with the discussion. Observations-_ Use of the rc kernels is a bad idea. You risk loosing functionality. Best practice would be to use 2.6.29 and back-port all the GEM revisions. ( compare the two kernels and copy source files from one to the other ) I used to do this a lot. To me 2.6.24 was the best so I'd port back all the junk I liked in the newer kernels. It's time consuming but worth it if you want to keep everything going. Think Red Hat here. Below is what I have: 1.mesa-git/glew-git 2.linux-2.6.31rc5 3.xf86-video-intel-2.8.0 Not much of an improvement. -- it's worst than that he's dead jim, dead jim dead jim. Bones looking at the intel driver. On 8/4/09, Tom Chiverton bugs.launchpad@falkensweb.com wrote: Quote from Storm's URL : within Mesa there are regressions where we could not even complete OpenGL tests with the current Karmic stack that had run fine under Ubuntu 9.04. Although it says the stack has less glitches, which is at least some improvement. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of a duplicate bug. Status in X.org xf86-video-intel: Invalid Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in “xserver-xorg-video-intel” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in linux in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Status in xserver-xorg-video-intel in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Bug description: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance issues on Intel is available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe. Philip K. Dick -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Last time I tested with last intel, X and kernel 2.6.30 (rc7?) versions available the results were poor and not stable. Has anyone got it working fine? (no render errors and good fps on googleearth and tux racer?) Has anyone got it working fine on a eee 901? Jose 2009/6/28 Bryce Harrington br...@bryceharrington.org I think we can close this one now. The issue is largely resolved in Karmic, and the commentary on this bug seems to have degenerated past usefulness. Other bug reports are tracking kernel patches and other fixes proposed for Jaunty. ** Changed in: xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: In Progress = Fix Released -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I updated my system to the latest drivers and X, and it works fine (better then before to be sure). No screen flicker. However, when I try to change the brightness through the shortcut keys on my laptop keyboard, or through the brightness applet in gnome, the screen flicker and CPU get high, but after 5 sec it reaches the desired level and stops. It is the most annoying when trying to change brightness to maximum. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I updated 9.10 again today A new kernel and Intel driver got installed. 2.6.30-10 has lowered performance considerably. The new upgrades to Xorg have a few issues with external LCD's. Stepping back to 2.6.30-9 stablized things as long as I didn't push past the resolution of my laptop's onboard display. It's probably about the best speeds I've seen in games. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Ofir Klinger klinger.o...@gmail.comwrote: I updated my system to the latest drivers and X, and it works fine (better then before to be sure). No screen flicker. However, when I try to change the brightness through the shortcut keys on my laptop keyboard, or through the brightness applet in gnome, the screen flicker and CPU get high, but after 5 sec it reaches the desired level and stops. It is the most annoying when trying to change brightness to maximum. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of a duplicate bug. Status in X.org xf86-video-intel: Invalid Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in “xserver-xorg-video-intel” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in linux in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Status in xserver-xorg-video-intel in Ubuntu Karmic: Fix Released Bug description: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance issues on Intel is available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- I tend to pee on things -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I think we can close this one now. The issue is largely resolved in Karmic, and the commentary on this bug seems to have degenerated past usefulness. Other bug reports are tracking kernel patches and other fixes proposed for Jaunty. ** Changed in: xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: In Progress = Fix Released -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
OK. Can't try the current (20090603) xorg-edgers build for performance because it just plain won't run games, but I believe this is a known problem. Meanwhile, on the latest Jaunty proposed versions UXA is about half the speed of EXA on a couple of games. Which bug are you using to track UXA performance regression - I'd like to test the versions recommended there and see how far off the best EXA performance we are now... In other words if this is now an invalid bug, where's the valid one, or would you like me to file a more structured bug report anew? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Zack, please file a new bug report and add all relevant information. This bug report is too long and not specific enough. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Dear Benjamin MOTU, Whatever is needed to be specific about this bug is written in the Ubuntu 9.04 Release Notes, right here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904#Performance%20regressions%20on%20Intel%20graphics%20cards Users of Intel video chipsets have reported performance regressions in Ubuntu 8.10 compared with previous releases (252094). Many of the issues have been resolved in Ubuntu 9.04, but some remain. By declaring this bug as Invalid, you're suggesting that the Ubuntu Release Notes are LYING. Next you should probably deny that the Holocaust ever existed. The Internet is full of THOUSANDS of proofs that recent versions of xserver-xorg-video-intel/ is SCREWED. This is very specific, and people with Intel video can experience this regression in Mandriva 2009.1, in Fedora 11, in openSUSE 11.2-M2/Factory, and so on. Mark Shuttleworth should simply send you to the garbage bin. You're undermining Ubuntu's reputation (if any of it left after shipping a release with Intel performance dropped to 10%). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Radu, your comments are inappropriate, please remain civil. Remember many of the people assisting with people's bugs are volunteers, and expressing your frustration here (while valid) does not help move things towards a solution. In this case Benjamin is correct, and is simply repeating information already provided earlier in the bug report. I am closing the Karmic task because the causes of the performance issues on Jaunty are no longer valid on Karmic. There are still some performance issues being tracked, but they're particular to Karmic and due to unrelated reasons; we expect all performance issues should be resolved by Karmic Alpha-3 or Alpha-4. The causes for performance issues in Jaunty have already been well characterized in other bug reports, and kernel patches are being tracked for potential SRU into Jaunty, if they do not expose other regressions. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: New = Fix Released -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Radu, please respect the Code of Conduct. The bug status for xf86-video- intel was set by the Bug Watch Updater to invalid, because the freedesktop bug #18389 was closed. As you wrote, this bug is well known. I never said, that this bug does not exist. I am affected of this bug, too. To solve this problem I have updated the Intel driver (provided by a PPA), the kernel to version 2.6.30-7 (grabbed from Karmic) and use UXA now. BTW, I am not a MOTU (yet). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
1. The freedesktop bug #18389 was closed with NOTOURBUG, which does NOT solve it. 2. The freedesktop bug #18389 was opened for openSUSE, so this does NOT solve Ubuntu's bug. 3. As long as Jaunty is affected by this bug, the bug status can NOT be Invalid! I stop using Ubuntu effective now, and I am shredding all the Ubuntu CDs I own. This is unacceptable. You're not using your brains. Jaunty is severely affected and can't be fixed with the *official* packages for 9.04 (kernel, xf86-video-intel), and you are playing with freedesktop closed, Karmic apparently fixed, etc. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
you should try windows 7, it's very neat, been using it since ubuntu started having issues with video. The only times I boot back into ubuntu now, are to try and fix the video. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
2009/6/5 Radu Cristian Fotescu beranger...@yahoo.ca: 1. The freedesktop bug #18389 was closed with NOTOURBUG, which does NOT solve it. 2. The freedesktop bug #18389 was opened for openSUSE, so this does NOT solve Ubuntu's bug. 3. As long as Jaunty is affected by this bug, the bug status can NOT be Invalid! There are a lot of reports of improved performance with using 2.6.30rc kernels in combination with newer versions of intel drivers from the x-org edgers PPA's in Jaunty and Karmic. I stop using Ubuntu effective now, and I am shredding all the Ubuntu CDs I own. This is unacceptable. You're not using your brains. Jaunty is Keep it cool, eh?! severely affected and can't be fixed with the *official* packages for 9.04 (kernel, xf86-video-intel), and you are playing with freedesktop closed, Karmic apparently fixed, etc. It was affected on the day of the release, packages from karmic are *official* and have been backported via PPA and do fix the problem. Right now it's the waiting time to decided what will qualify for SRU. It is Ubuntu policy not to include new versions of software after the release. Noone forced you to upgrade to Jaunty. Hardy is LTS and still supported. If you want stable and long-term machine use LTS releases. If you upgrade on day of the Release well you should expect that not everything will work as *you* wish it to work. Look how KDE 4.0 worked out and you have installed Jaunty 9.04.0 - point 0 version! -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Changed in: xserver-xorg-video-intel Status: Confirmed = Invalid -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
J.P. wrote: FWIW my ThinkPad R61i had a drastic improvement after upgrading the kernel to the 2.6.29 line following the 'optimal' config per this HOWTO: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1130582 Unfortunately, the text will garble up after suspending/hibernating or switching users. Restarting X solves the issue. Others have reported the issue in the above thread as well, including Karmic testers. After the most recent update, hibernate works as expected, i.e. it's not giving a black screen after waking up anymore. thx. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Well, when I measure performance improvement, I usually use PPRacer, but even if the FPS goes from ~5 to ~20~30 ( Intel X3100 card ), I still think that there's no improvement ... We have to compare to the Intel graphics performances under Windows XP ( my brother's PC with its Intel 8XX card runs games much faster on Windows ... ), and not to those under previous versions of Ubuntu ( people here compare to Hardy I think, which itself has poor graphics performances than Windows ) . -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I would call a 4-6X improvement an HUGE improvement. However it was Jaunty (and Intrepid) that showed a big drop in performances, so with that guide I can use Compiz and some Wine games again as I did on Hardy. And that is why people compare Jaunty to Hardy. The modified Jaunty performs better than Hardy on my hardware: Extreme Tux Racer is 2 times faster as I said before, so there is an improvement. But you are right: Hardy was slow, compared to Windows and there is still room for more improvements. I'm not saying I'm totally satisfied. I'm not sure if I can directly compare Exrteme Tux Racer to the Windows port, anyway Extreme Tux Racer for Windows hits 50-60 FPS, a lot more than that Bleeding-Edge Configuration for Jaunty. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
The reason I'm not satisfied with this improvement is that we are just back to the Hardy performances, so nearly 0% loss and gain on graphics performances ... But even on Hardy, Windows games that were smoothly playable under Windows Vista are totally unplayable now, even with these improvements ... We can talk about improvements only if we can really compete with Windows, also, if this goal will be achieved, then Ubuntu will really rule the notebook market ( since 90% of notebooks are based on Intel graphics ) . -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@bouazza: we're not quite there yet. In fact, we haven't even begun talking about catching up to windows. The main reason is that the graphics drivers for intel are currently (relatively) unstable. If you read the bug description, intel is doing a major rework of their linux drivers. In particular the two outcomes of this are two new driver components: GEM and Gallium3D. GEM has been introduced into the release, and most of the performance decreases from hardy were due to GEM being unstable (ie failing on certain hardware). The next step would be to move the Mesa Gallium3D driver into ubuntu, and i am 95% sure it's not happening until karmic. Then we can talk about catching up to windows, since as of now intel drivers crash on anything more than glxgears (GLSL makes them cry). For an example of current developments in the intel linux graphics world - EXA support was recently removed, so we're moving closer to a single stable intel backend driver (on UXA only). But this is not making it into jaunty since it requires the new kernel. Bottom line - you probably shouldn't expect improved (as you define it) intel performance on jaunty without manual tweaking. Or you could just update to the karmic alpha :). my 2c -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
FWIW my ThinkPad R61i had a drastic improvement after upgrading the kernel to the 2.6.29 line following the 'optimal' config per this HOWTO: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1130582 Unfortunately, the text will garble up after suspending/hibernating or switching users. Restarting X solves the issue. Others have reported the issue in the above thread as well, including Karmic testers. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I can confirm both: drastic improvement as well as problems after returning from suspension on my R50e. But it could/should still be faster and there are still some minor glichtes in the screen without having used suspension. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Hello ! @Richard Guo : Are you getting those good performances only using libdrm and intel driver packages from Xorg Edgers ? Sounds really good ! What about crashes ? I mean, those who freeze the entire system ( not possible to switch to console mode ), are they still present ? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
After I followed this HOW TO, I'm getting good performances: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1130582 On my case (I'm using a 945) I had to upgrate the kernel to 2.6.30 rc -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@NB : What do you mean with good performances ? Good scores which can compete with Windows XP ? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Well, I installed the 2.6.30rc7 kernel, libdrm/libdrm2 and the intel driver from xorg-edgers . The rendering errors with Compiz are corrected, I don't even see crashes now, but still no performances improvements ... I have an Intel X3100 card, do I need to install another package ? Do I have to install also the mesa packages from xorg-edgers ? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@bouazza: Yes, I still have crashes, but they're much more infrequent now (once every 2 days). I did a dist-upgrade after adding the PPA, so there may have been other packages (most likely mesa) fetched as well. How are you measuring performance improvement? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@bouazza: I means that Tux Racer now runs at 25-35 FPS instead of 1-2 in Jaunty. Just by adding UXA it was only 10-25 FPS. I followed ALL the Bleeding-Edge Configuration steps in the guide, else the performances was almost unchanged; but the configuration and the result may depend on your graphic card. In default Jaunty some games under Wine are unplayable: even enabling UXA didn't help. Of course I don't mean to play current 3D Windows games on a little i945 and I don't expect to get the same performances under Wine. Anyway that guide made them playable again. I don't remember the exact Wine performances on Hardy, but Jaunty with this changes seem faster. Tux Racer is faster for sure (it was around 15 FPS). Compiz effects are no longer choppy and the 2D is also OK (it don't looks slower than Windows), so I no longer miss Hardy. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Sounds like the kde session manager may have crashed, stalled and another copy got loaded. I'm not experienced enough with the internals of KDE to give you a deffinate hypothesis. A lot has changed from 3.5 up to 4.2. Buntu is starting to become more like Slackware. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Ralf Philipp i...@monatssong.de wrote: Hi there, I've the same problems with kubuntu and jaunty on a minimac with 945G. After googling around I found different proposals. To get some solutions to work I opened a file with 'sudo kate' from konsole. Kate was starting but I got an error-message like this 'Could not start ksmserver. Check your installation.'. After clicking OK to that message kdm (xorg?) is doing a restart. After logging in back everything is going smooth. glxgears makes 1100 fps (former 400fps) and all the dasktop effects and 3d-games are working well. If I restart the machine I've again the slow and sluggish desktop. I reproduced this behaviour serveral times. I didn't touch any configuration files. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of a duplicate bug. Status in X.org xf86-video-intel: Confirmed Status in “linux” source package in Ubuntu: New Status in “xserver-xorg-video-intel” source package in Ubuntu: In Progress Status in linux in Ubuntu Karmic: New Status in xserver-xorg-video-intel in Ubuntu Karmic: In Progress Bug description: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance issues on Intel is available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- I tend to pee on things -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Hi there, I've the same problems with kubuntu and jaunty on a minimac with 945G. After googling around I found different proposals. To get some solutions to work I opened a file with 'sudo kate' from konsole. Kate was starting but I got an error-message like this 'Could not start ksmserver. Check your installation.'. After clicking OK to that message kdm (xorg?) is doing a restart. After logging in back everything is going smooth. glxgears makes 1100 fps (former 400fps) and all the dasktop effects and 3d-games are working well. If I restart the machine I've again the slow and sluggish desktop. I reproduced this behaviour serveral times. I didn't touch any configuration files. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Performance is now drastically higher using libdrm 2.4.9 and intel driver 2.7.1 in UXA mode on a GM965 (PPA: https://launchpad.net/~xorg- edgers/+archive/ppa). Though glxgears is hovering around 600 fps now (see reason: http://qa-rockstar.livejournal.com/7869.html), actual 2D rendering speeds and 3D performance in games are much higher. Games in wine that were previously unplayable in 2.6 or 2.4 are now running at ~30 fps (War3 in opengl mode). UT2004 is around 20 fps (1280x800 res, medium settings). I'm getting speeds that are higher than I would get in windows (using friend's almost identical PC for comparison). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
linux-2.6.30-rc(ANY) solves the problem with speed, but still freezes in a few (10-20-30) minutes of work in UXA mode. And this time it freezes not only X desktop, but the whole system -- it's not possible to switch into console anymore (and yes, DontZap=false). Upgrading from xorg-edgers (in addition to linux-2.6.30) solves the freezes. Upgrading from ubuntu-x-swat doesn't help, but I think it is some library (libdrm or mesa) that solves the freezes, not the intel driver itself, because upgrading from xorg-edgers (with intel-2.7.99) and then rolling back to intel-2.7.0 from ubuntu-x-swat also solves the freezes. I've described step-by-step process of solving this problem for MSI Wind: http://nolar.info/linux/ubuntu/msi_wind_u100_compiz (russian only, sorry). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
My performance gains reverted after I allowed updates. I did see that one was xf86-intel-2.6.4 or something to that nature. I had no freezing on my 945GM. This is a Sony Vaio laptop so for those that are interested. It's was a clean Kubuntu 9.04 install with only the kernel added in. I'm not sure if I was using UXA or EXA. I didn't change the xorg.conf. I've advised everyone I know to avoid 9.04 and use 8.10 and below. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Why not contact MichaelLaurable at phoronix and have a standard testing suite made for intel graphics performance, something generic enough that all who use it will have something more reliable to report on than glxgears then benchmarking of good vs bad performance would be easier.. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.30-rc5/linux- image-2.6.30-020630rc5-generic_2.6.30-020630rc5_i386.deb http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.30-rc5/linux- headers-2.6.30-020630rc5_2.6.30-020630rc5_all.deb 19fps in Neverwinter Nights and ut2004 runs smooth as it did in windows vista. 1200+ fps in glxgears -- I tend to pee on things -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
One of the specific issues that has been identified on Intel graphics, is that we no longer have an MTRR for the AGP aperture. We look to have isolated the issue there, and have produced test kernels. For those of you with Intel graphics on Jaunty perhaps you could test the kernels listed on bug #314928. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Andy, it's not helpful for me, the kernel from http://people.ubuntu.com/~apw/lp314928-jaunty/ . 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller [8086:27a2] (rev 03) xserver-xorg-video-intel = 2.6.3-0ubuntu9 1). 2.6.28-11-generic: GtkPerf: 17.85 seconds glxgears: ~175 FPS 2). 2.6.28-13.44~lp314928apw1: GtkPerf: 16.45 seconds glxgears: ~170 FPS -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Tags added: performance -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
No need for any newer intel driver! Kernel 2.6.30-rc4 fixes the issue by itself! At least for my [8086:27a2] (rev 03) using EXA. (http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.30-rc4/linux- image-2.6.30-020630rc4-generic_2.6.30-020630rc4_i386.deb) kernel 2.6.30-020630rc4-generic: * 1276 FPS for xserver-xorg-video-intel version 2.6.3-0ubuntu9 * 885 FPS for xserver-xorg-video-intel-2.4 version 2.4.1-1ubuntu11~ppa1 kernel 2.6.28-11-generic: * 177 FPS for xserver-xorg-video-intel version 2.6.3-0ubuntu9 * 420 FPS for xserver-xorg-video-intel-2.4 version 2.4.1-1ubuntu11~ppa1 As you can see, with the default Jaunty kernel, reverting to the Intel video driver 2.4 improves the performance from 177 to 420 FPS (for 2D, you can tell it by playing a Flash in full screen), but the 2.6.30 kernel has two surprising effects: * improves the performance of the 2.4 driver from 420 to 885 FPS, so roughly 2 times… * …but the performance of the default 2.6 driver is boosted from 177 to 1276, so more than 7 times! http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/2009/05/04/jaunty-kernel-2630-fixes- the-intel-video/ -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Radu: Please post numbers based on ppracer, if you can- glxgears only shows how quickly the screen gets blanked (ish), so it's not a good guide to real world performance. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Tom: I don't want to start a flamewar, but: §1: I have never used GPU-intensive games in DOS and Windows (were Commander Keen, Pushover and Many Faces of Go... GPU-intensive?), I have never used GPU-intensive games in Linux (unless gnotravex and quarry + gnugo + grhino qualify for that), and I WILL NEVER INSTALL NOR USE TRUE GAMES EVER! Computers were not invented for this kind of games (now, chess is another story). I don't tolerate true computer games in my sight. GAMES ARE *NOT* A VALID BENCHMARK, except for gamers! And I don't trust the IQ of hardcore gamers. Sorry to the offended guys. §2: Yes, glxgears is *not* a benchmark. OK, instead if just counting how many times you can rotate some gears on the screen, it might actually count the number of frames, because of the call to glutSwapBuffers(); in gears.c, in the function draw(). From the doc:The update typically takes place during the vertical retrace of the monitor, rather than immediately after glutSwapBuffers is called. ... Subsequent OpenGL commands can be issued immediately after calling glutSwapBuffers, but are not executed until the buffer exchange is completed. However, please note that this is not normal to have the frame refresh rate *severely* changed by a KERNEL update, while using a same version of the video driver! §3: Performance regressions can be seen in full-screen Flash too, and regressions are unacceptable. Watching a video or a Flash is not like gaming, yet it's necessary for a desktop/laptop usage. §4: EXA, EXA, EXA. The bug report is not about UXA. UXA is not ready, therefore it does not exist. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Serghei:
#define _solved FALSE
The problem is 3-fold:
(1) updating to intel-2.7.0-1 is useless unless a major kernel update is made
too;
(2) updating to intel-2.7.0-1 is *not* necessary as long as simply updating the
kernel to 2.6.30rc{2,3,4} fixes the issue for intel-2.6.3 (which is the
official one in jaunty);
(3) getting a 2.6.30 kernel in jaunty-updates is as probable as the pigs flying.
@Lionel:
You're right, there is a need for a glxgears-that-counts-gears-not-
screens, or even better.
But why doing it like a game? Compiz is not a game. Flash is not a
game. Totem/VLC/MPlayer/Gxine are not games. CAD/CAM/CAE OpenGL
applications are not games.
If video performance in Linux is only needed because of the games,
then you'll make of Linux just another Windows. OS/2 tried that
once...
--
MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Radu: Ok, let me paraphrase. The problem seems to be solved algorithmically, architecturally, and conceptually. And those very concerned users CAN, AT LAST, AFTER SUCH A LONG TIME, fix it by just installing some software pieces/versions. For not so concerned or experienced users -- yes, the solution surely wont be available until Karmic; maybe they will release kernel-2.6.30-release in proposed updates, but who knows when there will be such a release. PS: I had not tested with default driver, since didnt find any easy way to rollback driver version without deleting a lot of other packages. But I believe you say truth about intel-2.6.3 :-) Will check much later. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Just to confirm #310, installing 2.6.30 and enabling EXA made performances very good. Desktop effects very smooth, so it ppracer. In addition it seems to be stable. Unfortunately, my wifi is not working with that kernel. :( Now we just need to make pigs fly and put that into Jaunty updates. I really find that ironic that I am already installing unsupported packages on my brand new Jaunty less than 2 weeks after its release. Usually I start messing with these things one month before the next release is due. Guess we just have to wait two more weeks before the user experience on Karmic becomes better than Jaunty's. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Just trying to be constructive : It is said that glxgears is not a benchmark. Would it be hard to make a glxgear that would be one with reproducible results ? If running ppracer is considered as a benchmark, why not have a glxgear that does everything like a game (including some artificial computations) ? If such a tool exists, it deserves to be known a bit more. If not, it derserves to be done. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Gnurou: No one will put _release_candiate_ kernel into any updates. So there are two ways: 1) Wait until linux 2.6.30 release (when?) 2) Backport those patches, which solved the problem. People say Mandriva 2009.1 has intel-2.7.0, and this whole issue solved. And I'm sure they didn't put R.C. into distribution ;-) And that means solution is somehow back-portable. It is their luck that they have released two week after Jaunty, and got that solution working, I think... -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
For instance, I get ~5 frames/sec extra in ppracer using rc4 over the stock Jaunty kernel (using UXA) -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
UXA is noted here as a possible solution for EXA issues. What's wrong? Test result for kernel-2.6.30rc2 + intel-2.7.0-1 (AccelMethod=UXA) on MSI Wind (Intel GM945): Everything works stable, desktop doesn't freeze for almost 20 hours of work (earlier it was freezing every 1-3-5 hours). There are no visual corruptions when moving or overlaying windows with compositing enabled (was fixed with very first UXA appearance indeed, and that is why only UXA is acceptable). Compiz effects work subjectively smooth and fast, there are no such a lags as they were with kernel-2.6.28 with UXA enabled. Fullscreen video plays normal, no lags. So, it seems to me that problem was almost solved, except for this solution being release candidate. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Using EXA (and no other options in XOrg), I get a slightly higher peak in ppracer, with less fall off when more stuff is on screen. However Xorg now eats ~20% of CPU time so I'm going back to UXA. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Radu: Like it or not, most people prefer the ppracer frame rate as an indicator, you don't have to play the game, and can even uninstall it after doing the tests- but it's generally a better 'real world' indicator, and easier to get a FPS number from than Compiz or KDE4. GAMES ARE NOT A VALID BENCHMARK, except for gamers! I'm afraid in this case in particular, that's just wrong. There are many reports that show glxgears frame rate going down, but both subjective 'feel' and ppracer frame rate improving. this is not normal to have the frame refresh rate severely changed by a KERNEL update Actually, it's increasingly common, because a whole lot of what used to be in video drivers, or X itself, is now in the kernel, so called 'kernel mode setting' for one thing. full-screen Flash A good subjective test, but you can't get any numbers out of it, because Flash frame rate is limited by the plugin. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@320-321: Unfortunately, 2.6.30rc4 broke fatally suspend-to-disk (can't resume at all if previously hibernated), despite suspend-to-ram working, so I had to drop it. As we were officially advised against UXA, I have not tried it, but I've just added it to xorg.conf, and, for kernel 2.6.28-11 with intel 2.6.3, glxgears suddenly raised (from 177 FPS with EXA) to 457 FPS, but I am puzzled by the following message: Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be approximately 1/39 the monitor refresh rate. I'll keep trying on UXA (default kernel, default xserver-xorg-video- intel), to see if it's stable on my i945 [8086:27a2] (rev 03). So far, it works. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Radu: UXA (at least on vanilla Jaunty) is known to be unstable for some configurations (including mine). Your mileage may vary, but in no way this could be considered a fix. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Gnurou : C'est tout à fait correct. Even if it doesn't freeze nor crash, UXA breaks hibernation: upon resuming, the screen is black and dead. I can switch to other VT, but not to restore the X session. OTOH, all the reports concerning Intel blabla [8086:27a2] (rev 03) are almost useless: there are way too many different mobo architectures using the same chip ID, yet each of them behaves differently -- some work better, some work worse, some crash. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Seems that hibernation is broken because of intel driver too. I've just tested it on my MSI Wind U100, and system hibernates and resumes normally only after deleting splash kernel option from /boot/grub/menu.lst for 2.6.30-rc2 kernel (option quiet has no matter). With splash option system freezes in text mode; AltF1 allows to see few strange messages; but nothing happens then. This issue does not relate to X performance and corruptions directly, of course, but splash screens use video mode switching somehow. And, as I know, they try to implement seamless graphical booting with use of KMS in new kernels. Maybe that's it. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
In addition, the xorg-edgers packages and the rc4 kernel break acceleration on i915 chipsets completey. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
My results on an Thinkpad X60 - everything is back to normal with Kernel 2.6.30: Ubuntu 9.04, kernel 2.6.30-020630rc3-generic: EXA: pp-racer ~100 FPS, glxgears 1577 FPS equiv to intrepid with INTEL_BATCH=1 no hangs, suspend/resume works fine, console switching works fine googleearth usable but menus do not properly overlay the map pane - really good performance UXA: pp-racer ~25 FPS, glgears 430 FPS, freezes after short time googleearth 5 visually perfect Same system with Kernel 2.6.28: UXA: pp-racer ~ 18 FPS, glxgears 358 FPS, Compiz usable but much slower googleearth OK Stable? EXA: pp-racer ~ 10 FPS, glxgears 212 FPS, Compiz usable but slow googleearth menus not OK, Map incorrectly redrawn during ALT-Tab switching LANG=C apt-cache policy xserver-xorg-video-intel linux-image-2.6.30-020630rc3-generic linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic xserver-xorg-video-intel: Installed: 2:2.6.3-0ubuntu9.1 Candidate: 2:2.6.3-0ubuntu9.1 Version table: *** 2:2.6.3-0ubuntu9.1 0 500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-proposed/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2:2.6.3-0ubuntu9 0 500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages linux-image-2.6.30-020630rc3-generic: Installed: 2.6.30-020630rc3 Candidate: 2.6.30-020630rc3 Version table: *** 2.6.30-020630rc3 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status linux-image-2.6.28-11-generic: Installed: 2.6.28-11.42 Candidate: 2.6.28-11.42 Version table: *** 2.6.28-11.42 0 500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Jaunty results on a eee 901 with 'out-of-thebox' configuration. *NO COMPIZ: glxgears 600fps+ NO rendering errors, GoogleEarth smooth (sun atmosphere off) ppracer 18fps COMPIZ ON: glxgears 570fps + rendering erros when moving the window, GoogleEarth less smooth (sun atmosphere off) ppracer 18fps * In my particular case *(eee 901 Intel 965GME)* performance seems better for Jaunty 9.04 than for Ibex 8.10 (for instance, I could not use GoogleEarth in Ibex at all) [How can I check whether my out of the box config is using EXA or UXA?] Jose -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:45:14PM -, James Strother wrote: But, have you considered supplying a package with an older version of xserver that could run the i810 driver? To be honest, we're stretched pretty thin already just maintaining one version of X.org. At over 180 separate packages, totally almost 2000 bugs[1], we've got a lot of work cut out for us. I say us because while there is only one paid X.org maintenance position, there are about a dozen volunteers who contribute a lot of time maintaining various bits and pieces of the stack, without which your X would be much worse. Within a given Ubuntu release, all of the 180 X packages are tested to work with the version of the xserver included in that release. Each version of xserver provides a different ABI, that all X.org packages have to be built against. Including a second version of xserver would necessitate testing those packages against that version as well, and in some cases providing two versions of those packages in order to account for the ABI differences. For instance, even if we only supported a single video driver with that second xserver, we'd need to package and support two versions of each of the couple dozen input drivers, and probably two sets of packages for xorg, xrandr, xinit, xauth, and on and on. A LOT of work. I don't think any OEMs shipping 8xx purchased support contracts with Canonical that would help us justify putting resources into supporting these older chips. But let's imagine that they did. In this case, wouldn't it make more sense rather than pouring all that time and effort into an xserver backport, to instead fund making the -intel driver work better with the 8xx chips directly? Now, given the large amount of bugs against 8xx, you might conclude Ubuntu is not giving any attention to this chip. In fact that's not the case[2], but getting proper support for it depends a lot on community involvement. I can help by doing packaging, liaising with Intel, giving coding advice, and even coordinating efforts, but I'm just one guy and can't take on responsibility for supporting the chipset alone. But I would love to help you and others like you in forming a i810 development community[3] to get support that this chip deserves. Bryce 1: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+packagebugs 2: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-x/2009-April/thread.html 3: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/6270/comments/72 -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Or maybe if there are many i81x users out there you could write a petition or similar to Intel. As soon as the whole UXA, KMS operation is stabilized it should them safe a lot of work (http://keithp.com/blogs/Sharpening_the_Intel_Driver_Focus/) so maybe they have some spare time for older chips. Especially if i81x users are forced to use Vesa with newer Linux releases. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Hi, I did some more or less systematic benchmarks using the current 2.6 driver and the backported 2.4 driver (Reinhard Tartler's) on the i915, G35 and GM965 chipsets. I thought I'd share them, maybe they can be of use. https://www.hackerspace.lu/wiki/Tracking_intel_performance_regression -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Btw. I guess most of this problems should be fixed in Karmic. I have tested -intel 2.7.0 with Kernel 2.6.30, UXA and KMS and it is very fast on my i915. All Compiz animations seems smoth and doesn't lag. Even textured video seems to be fast. Glxgears shows still ~300 frames but as we all know it is no real benchmark. If textured video gets rid of the tearing before release the Linux driver will be better than the windows one because Aero doesn't run with i915 and finally Compiz will run without penalties (no blue borders, no not moveable 3D outputs and no flickering with 3d). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I can confirm: installing both 2.7.99 intel driver from xorg-edgers AND linux kernel 2.6.30-rc2 has solved performance issues (at least with compiz) and image corruptions with opengl. Now I'm checking for UXA desktop freeze, and will report after night or two of notebook working. PS: MSI Wind U100, Intel GM945. PPS: Wireless became broken after 2.6.30-rc2 install, but this is another issue ;-) -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Bryce: The notice was yup, the link to page with step-by-steps for new X, kernel and MTRR wasn't, and should have been, ideal world permitting. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 06:26:46AM -, Tom Chiverton wrote: Bryce: The notice was yup, the link to page with step-by-steps for new X, kernel and MTRR wasn't, and should have been, ideal world permitting. In the future, I hope we'll have your help in drafting release note entries for remaining X issues in Ubuntu. For many developers, the final weeks of the release are a mess of bugs and making the release notes complete often falls to a secondary task, so having people who can devote attention to them can make a big difference. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Bryce, Thanks for the update, very informative. You mentioned in your post several reasons for not reverting to an older, more stable version of the -intel driver. And I agree that this would probably be counter- productive, in my experience the -intel driver has never really been stable on older chipsets. So my guess is that people would still be highly unsatisfied with the driver quality, the only difference would be that the bug reports would be against an old version and would no longer useful. But, have you considered supplying a package with an older version of xserver that could run the i810 driver? Please note that I am not suggesting that Ubuntu rollback its xserver, just that it supply something like a xserver-xorg-legacy package that could replace the default xserver with an older version (one that supported i810) for users with older intel chipsets. Perhaps a little installation magic could pick the legacy driver depending on the detected hardware. I know that this is an ugly solution, and I recognize that simply fixing the bugs in the -intel driver is a more elegant approach. But, it has been over a year since Ubuntu stopped working properly on these chipsets. The most recent driver has rendered my system (and many others) completely and utterly unusable. And in all likelihood it will take many many more months before the regressions introduced by the -intel driver start to be pared down You asked for patience, but I think that the community has already been very patient. I think the most important thing at this point is to get things working again. And, ugly as it may be, this would restore basic functionality to many of the above users instantaneously (I just installed xserver 1.4.2, and my system has never worked better). In your post, you suggested that releasing an older version would inhibit our ability to work with upstream to gain real fixes to the problem In fact, I would argue that releasing a legacy driver would only allow for a more sane release plan. Reading the notes by Keith Packard that you have cited above, it seems that Xorg is essentially treating -intel as a beta. Beta software is fine for early adopters who are willing to track down bugs and take the time to file intelligent bug reports, but it is counterproductive to distribute beta software at large. It does not produce more information, it simply infuriates individuals that have become unwilling beta-testers (see some of the above comments) and produces a large number of uninformed bug reports (see some of the duplicates). I think the best way to get to a working driver is to relieve some of the presure from the Xorg team by pushing out a legacy driver that gets normal users working systems, and then let the early adopters slowly work through the bugs in the -intel driver. In your post, you also mentioned that releasing an outdated version is the wrong thing to do. Well, it certainly doesn't feel right. And if everything was as it should, every version would improve upon the previous and releasing old versions would never be necessary. But alas, this does not seem to be the case. I think the right thing to do at this point is to get things working again. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
@Bryce: Well, many people, myself included, wrote in the beta and RC wiki'ed release notes about it, but it seemed each new release reset the list of release notes, rather than engaging the people from the previous release and asking them if it was fixed or not. You'll see I've poped into the forums and offered my help there (using boot.local, for instance, to apply the MTRR fix to at least the first start of X). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Cheers for the update Bryce, I'm sure, even if the tone is heated at times everyone appreciates that someone, somewhere, is at least working on it ! I worry, however, about two things a) the information about how to fix any issues wasn't included in the release notes. To me, it felt like Ubuntu was ignoring the problem, or worse trying to hide it. b) any changes are so major (new kernel rev., for instance) that they won't ever be back ported into 9.04 from 9.10 For the record, I would prefer newer hardware plain didn't work till post-9.04 than saddle 'a sizable number' of existing users with a horribly bad (but working as you same) system... at least you can just say 'the latest Intel FooBar cards are not supported yet (and weren't in any previous version either)' and it's all very clear what is going on. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
a) the information about how to fix any issues wasn't included in the release notes. To me, it felt like Ubuntu was ignoring the problem, or worse trying to hide it. Actually the information was included here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904#Performance regressions on Intel graphics cards b) any changes are so major (new kernel rev., for instance) that they won't ever be back ported into 9.04 from 9.10 Currently the plan is to identify the specific kernel patches from the new kernel version that are felt to help the performance issue, and backport just those fixes. Whether this can be done without causing side effects remains to be seen in testing. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Thank you everyone who has contributed towards analyzing this bug for Jaunty. As many of you know, the Intel performance issues were not completely fixed for the Jaunty release, and I understand you are probably as frustrated as I am that it remains an issue for so many people. To those who have remained patient through this process, it is especially appreciated. For the background behind why all this regression happened to begin with, I'd best refer you to Keith Packard himself (you may want to skip down to the Pick One From Each Column section, if you're not so interested in the technical stuff): http://keithp.com/blogs/Sharpening_the_Intel_Driver_Focus/ It is unfortunate that Jaunty (and Intrepid, to a lesser degree) hit in the midst of this major rearchitecturing work, and suffered the consequences as a result. One thing that is important to note is that not everyone sees the performance regression. Some have no problem whatsoever. Some see it only with compiz, and are fine sticking with 2D. Some see a slight regression but not so bad that it affects their workflow. This is not to trivialize the importance of having good performance with compiz (since we ship it on by default). As well, there are a sizable number of people who have significant performance problems both with 2D and 3D. Given all the construction work being done upstream, the obvious question is why not to keep Ubuntu to an older, more stable version of the -intel driver such as 2.4 or 2.2. There are four reasons. First, it would undo fixes that were gained in 2.6 to bugs that were even worse than this performance problem. Second, some newer Intel hardware was enabled in 2.6, which would be lost if we moved to an older driver. Third, it would inhibit our ability to work with upstream to gain real fixes to the problem. And fourth, it is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to figure out what causes the problem, and fix it, and that is what many of us have been quietly working on the past couple months. Let me explain what we have done to date, the current status, and the plan going forward. In our testing, we've uncovered a lot of different ways to work around the problem. Sadly, there is no single workaround which solves the issue for everyone across the board. In some cases there has been sufficient consistency (such as a workaround that worked for particular families of chipsets) that we were able to roll out the change. In most cases, however, our testing found the workaround only seemed to solve the problem for some cases, and caused new problems (corruption, freezes, crashes...) for other cases randomly. I generally consider stability to be higher up on the priority list than performance, so where we have an option that would give performance at the expense of stability I've opted to pass it by. Because the driver seems to be so sensitive to changes, we're being very deliberate in doing thorough testing; last thing we want is to rush some change out that causes more damage than it solves. However, since these workarounds do in fact help people in some cases, I've capturing them in the Ubuntu-X wiki. My feeling is that even if we can't use them for Ubuntu as a whole, by getting the information out there others can benefit from it to mitigate the problems locally while we keep searching for a true fix. This documentation is located here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance I hope for anyone still having performance problems, that one of the ideas contained there will help you out of the hole. So what's the plan going forward? We've known that there are upstream kernel patches that were introduced as _real_ fixes to the problem. Since they're kernel patches, they're a bit harder to test, however we've found they do indeed address the problem. There were concerns that they cause secondary issues (freezes, etc.) so the kernel team didn't include them for jaunty, and those issues will obviously require further study so we don't end up causing worse problems. However, they're still on the kernel team's radar to give ample review and attention, and if we are lucky and they don't cause other regressions then we may see them available as SRUs. I will keep you updated as I know more. So, meanwhile you can help by being patient, helping keep discussions about this civil, and disseminating useful information on workarounds to affected users. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Things were working fine on 8.10 until the updates released around April 3rd. Problem persists on Jaunty. Got an Intel 965 (PCIID: 8086:2a02). This bug is related: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/359392 -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Also affects: linux (Ubuntu Karmic) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu Karmic) Importance: Wishlist Status: In Progress -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
When I try to enable UXA, startx just freezes during startup. I have also noticed, when I run glxgears, it says Failed to initialize GEM. Could this because I am using the 2.6.28 *server* version of the kernel? On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM, andrehsiqueira andrehsique...@gmail.comwrote: On my notebook Toshiba U205 S5034 - with Intel VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03), I fix the performance issue by a change into xorg.conf: Section Device Identifier Configured Video Device # It turns off disabling pipa A by a driver after while. # Its 100 % working workaround. Option ForceEnablePipeA true # restore COMPIZ performance Option AccelMethod UXA # Option FramebufferCompression off EndSection -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. Status in X.org xf86-video-intel: Confirmed Status in “linux” source package in Ubuntu: New Status in “xserver-xorg-video-intel” source package in Ubuntu: In Progress Bug description: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance issues on Intel is available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Tried ForceEnablePipeA + UXA on Juanty beta over an eee 901. Results: - Rendering errors on Compiz went away. - Glxgears FPSs dro from 600 to 150. - GoogleEarth crash due to libssl 0.9.8 error (couldn't test performance) - Planetpenguin racer: not very smooth 3-4 fps at 1024x600 - Tremulous didn't start either. (Maybe because testing jaunty on a pendrive?) Not very impressive performance after all. Jose -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On my notebook Toshiba U205 S5034 - with Intel VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03), I fix the performance issue by a change into xorg.conf: Section Device Identifier Configured Video Device # It turns off disabling pipa A by a driver after while. # Its 100 % working workaround. Option ForceEnablePipeA true # restore COMPIZ performance Option AccelMethod UXA # Option FramebufferCompression off EndSection -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On Jaunty or Ibex? I tried it (ForceEnablePipeA + UXA) on a eee 901 with 8.10 Intrepid Ibex and it did not fix anything. My eee 901 has an Intel 945GME, no one else has this chipset? Jose 2009/4/12 andrehsiqueira andrehsique...@gmail.com On my notebook Toshiba U205 S5034 - with Intel VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03), I fix the performance issue by a change into xorg.conf: Section Device Identifier Configured Video Device # It turns off disabling pipa A by a driver after while. # Its 100 % working workaround. Option ForceEnablePipeA true # restore COMPIZ performance Option AccelMethod UXA # Option FramebufferCompression off EndSection -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
My eee 901 has an Intel 945GME, no one else has this chipset? There are many who have that chipset. Some of them have reported various bugs related to it and some of those bugs have even been tagged as such: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=945gme I would guess that for issues related to performance, the issues would be similar to the on the 945GM chipset: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=945gm -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On Jaunty 9.04 beta. Atenciosamente André Henrique de Siqueira O mundo precisa mais de atitudes do que de lamentações. 2009/4/12 JoseLVG josv...@gmail.com On Jaunty or Ibex? I tried it (ForceEnablePipeA + UXA) on a eee 901 with 8.10 Intrepid Ibex and it did not fix anything. My eee 901 has an Intel 945GME, no one else has this chipset? Jose 2009/4/12 andrehsiqueira andrehsique...@gmail.com On my notebook Toshiba U205 S5034 - with Intel VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03), I fix the performance issue by a change into xorg.conf: Section Device Identifier Configured Video Device # It turns off disabling pipa A by a driver after while. # Its 100 % working workaround. Option ForceEnablePipeA true # restore COMPIZ performance Option AccelMethod UXA # Option FramebufferCompression off EndSection -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of a duplicate bug. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Note to eee pc users. From what I've gathered, the intel driver now defaults to the EXA acceleration method which relies on the GEM memory manager. That should be fine and dandy however note that GEM is not part of the 2.6.27 kernel. So if by any chance you got your kernel from array.org and did not upgraded to 2.6.28 (from stock ubuntu), beside having an awful fps in most 3d apps, glxgears will tell you that it cannot use GEM and this means: switch to 2.6.28, your problems will be solved. p.s.: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- is a good thing. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I also have a fall-back in performance, I can't play xmoto, so this is a serious bug for me!:) st...@skynet:~$ glxinfo | grep render Failed to initialize GEM. Falling back to classic. direct rendering: Yes OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) G33 20090326 2009Q1 RC2 x86/MMX/SSE2 st...@skynet:~$ lspci |grep VGA 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31 Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02) If I add the Option AccelMethod uxa, I don't even get to gdm. I also attached my Xorg.0.log. I hope, this report helps somehow. ** Attachment added: Xorg.0.log http://launchpadlibrarian.net/25246646/Xorg.0.log -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I hope, this report helps somehow. I'm sorry, but this information in this place won't help. If you file a new bug report, attach Xorg.0.log, the output of `lspci -vvnn` and the information above, it may help. If you use the ubuntu-bug program, it will attach a lot of useful information to the bug report. Be sure to check https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance and tell if any of those problems can explain your peformance issues (I know this is what you did, but this is the wrong place). In this bug report there are lots of different unrelated performance issues, most without sufficient information, and it is just way to messy to start analyzing anything here. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I am also having troubles with the intel driver and jaunty glxgears is slow, playback is slow, typing is not as responsive.. I have an intel G45 card. I tried: Option AccelMethod XAA In my xorg.conf, but that just makes xorg crash. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Thanks for the guidance. I reported this as a new bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video- intel/+bug/359629 -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
On Saturday 11 April 2009 17:15:13 Jordan Wilberding wrote: [snip] I tried: Option AccelMethod XAA In my xorg.conf, but that just makes xorg crash. Same here. I also have a GM45 (Lenovo Thinkpad T500). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
The bug below has been fixed in the most recent patch (xserver-xorg- video-intel 2:2.6.3-0ubuntu8) Some users of Intel i8x5 video chipsets are unable to load X, getting an error message of Fatal server error: Couldn't bind memory for BO front buffer. As a workaround, use the VESA driver by logging into a text console, running sudo nano /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and adding the line Driver vesa to the Device section. An alternative (experimental) workaround is to use the UXA acceleration method (see below). If in doubt, please do not upgrade to Ubuntu 9.04 Beta yet. 304871 [ https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video- intel/+bug/304871?comments=all ] Thank you VERY MUCH for your hard work! However, there are still some other problems probably related to this performance issue; the graphic rendering in some of the java-applet web pages are broken. Please refer to the attached screenshots. (II) Module intel: vendor=X.Org Foundation compiled for 1.6.0, module version = 2.6.3 Module class: X.Org Video Driver ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 5.0 -PCI Devices- VGA compatible controller : Intel Corporation 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE Chipset Integrated Graphics Device /etc/X11/xorg.conf: Section Device Identifier Configured Video Device Driver intel VideoRAM131072## Enable/Disable this option makes no difference Option Legacy3D false ## Either true of false makes no difference # Option AccelMethod XAA ## GDM won't start once enabled. # Option UseFBDevfalse ## true or false makes no difference # Optoin DRI false ## true or false makes no difference EndSection Hope this can also be fixed soon. Thanks! ** Attachment added: broken-image.png.tar.gz http://launchpadlibrarian.net/25010185/broken-image.png.tar.gz -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
** Description changed: I experience significant performance loss with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3 with my Intel DG965WH based system and SVDO/ADD2 video card. Actually, the performance loss started with ubuntu 8.04.1; I upgraded to see if there was any performance gain with the new version. While glxgears produced values between 1580 fps and 1496 fps with ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, respectively, now I can only achieve something like 445 fps with ubuntu 8.10 alpha 3. I get an error message when starting glxgears that TTM was not available and classic mode would be used. Similary, the flight simulator flightgear achieves frames rates of 1-2 fps only. My suspicion is that some of the hardware acceleration features of the X3000 system are not being used, and I don't know how to activate them with the new xorg.conf structure and the underlying automatic configuration approach. I would like to see the graphics performance go back to the values achieved in ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10. Your help / comment is greatly appreciated. Bingo [Update] Intel upstream has been in a multi-year effort to rearchitect X and the Intel 2D and 3D driver to provide better performance. While this work is underway, people are seeing variations in performance levels from version to version, for a variety of reasons. There are probably multiple unrelated bugs being reported in the comments here. It is important to note and remember that glxgears is *not* a benchmark tool. It simply measures how fast the driver writes images to the screen, whereas most 3D applications are limited by render speed, not merely blit speed. Instead use a 3D game (flightgear, tremulous, etc.) that has a real rendering workload to make comparisons. If you're definitely seeing performance problems and are able to narrow it to a specific cause, please do not comment onto this bug report - it's too lengthy and rambling already, and your issue will just be lost in the noise. Instead, make a new report and please be as specific as possible with exact steps to reproduce and as much detail and logs as you can. See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Reporting for tips on making a good X bug report. + + A troubleshooting guide, with additional background about performance + issues on Intel is available at: + + https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Troubleshooting/IntelPerformance -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Re: Marek in #276: Can anyone from the 9.04 team confirm that either a) all the required updates will be in place at release time to kill the nasty performance problems (I think that means another minor kernel rev., newer X and intel X driver ?) or b) decide these new parts of X/intel driver are too new and shop the old, working fine, ones until 9.10 (or later, if needed) ? I vote for b) at this point personally. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Please don't spam this report with Windows is better, I'm going back comments. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Bruce: what? Jacob: I believe that patch gives the ability to disable GEM in the drm module, at load-time of the module. This way people who don't yet have stable GEM support can disable it. I have not tested the patch, but it seems like it may work. The same bug upstream also submitted the first half of the full patch. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Carey Underwood (a reply to your comment in https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video- intel/+bug/303011): Here is a direct link to the patch: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=24417 And this is the comment of the author: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16835#c15 -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
Ofir: The patch you are referring to does not disable GEM support, it only provides an option to turn it on or off at build time. According to that, it's on by default (and I think that's how it should be -- GEM is the right way to go about memory management, it just isn't completely supported by all drivers yet). -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
OK on a T60 with 945GM I installed a clean 9.04 beta. glxgears where around 250fps tearing and extremely slow. I change xorg.conf and added the option for UXA glxgears has now jumped to 450fps, still not right, but it's an improvement. Had anyone gone further? Any fixes yet? Do we have any of the ubuntu devs participating in this discussion, or is it only users? -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 252094] Re: MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel
I have been following this thread for a while hoping for a solution to the poor performance of Intel GMA965 X3100 on Intrepid 8.10 64bit. Compiz was always stuttering, scrolling was laggy, and slight tearing with videos. So I was reading this other bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/177492), and right at the beginning, someone suggested adding the following line to the Device section of xorg.conf. Option AccelMethod XAA Well, that's what I did, and now compiz is very smooth and videos are not tearing anymore. I did have a problem initially with VLC crashing when I clicked on any video file, but that was resolved after I changed the default video output to X11 video output in VLC's preferences. Hope this helps someone. -- MASTER: Poor graphics performance on Intel https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252094 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
