Re: nvidia vs ati
Bill Moseley wrote: On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:12:07AM +0100, Elie De Brauwer wrote: Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Ok, you are making me feel bad. I've got an XP 1800+ on a MSI K7T266 board with a matrox G550 AGP running in 1280x960 and X 4.3.0.1. Noramlly run dual head xinerama but this is running with one screen setup: My fps is not quite so impressive as others have posted. Before I loaded my agpgart module I had: $ glxgears 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.200 FPS After insmod agpgart 1334 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.800 FPS 1556 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.200 FPS 1557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.400 FPS 1557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.400 FPS Which is still less than exciting. And that's the default window size for glxgears. Full screen (maximized) is real ugly: 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS 165 frames in 5.0 seconds = 33.000 FPS 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS So is that just old, slow hardware[1], or should I be looking at other possible problems? ... [1] BTW -- I used to run swish-e indexing on this machine and it would index 25,000 files in about a minute. A few OS changes later, hard disk upgrades, and another 1/4 of RAM and now it indexes those same files in about 4 minutes. So maybe something else is going on, but I don't know where to start looking. Any ideas? Have you tried hdparm to see if your disk drive is optimised? Did you use the same type/brand of memory?Could it be of inferior quality/specs and slowing down the system? hhmm...can't think of anything else for the momment and the provided info (this is just a wild guest , anyway - I'm not an expert, although I deal with hardware ocasionally)... P.S.: It's not hardware related, but have you checked if you have some hard cpu consumming process(es) ? Chears John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:08 -0800, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Which is still less than exciting. And that's the default window size for glxgears. Full screen (maximized) is real ugly: 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS 165 frames in 5.0 seconds = 33.000 FPS 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS ..ever checked FPS in a movie theater? ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. I have an ABIT Siluro GF4 Ti4200 OTES-64MB graphics card, from lspci I get: 01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV25 [GeForce4 Ti 4200] (rev a3) ~$ glxgears 17564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3512.800 FPS 19488 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3897.600 FPS 19876 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3975.200 FPS 19847 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3969.400 FPS 19851 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3970.200 FPS I am running this card on a dual AMD 2100+ system with 1G Ram, using XFree 4.2.1 (from testing) and using the debian packaged nvida drivers. I have not had any problems with this card, except for the noise the fan makes, which is quite loud... actually its louder than all the other fans I have in my case put together...!!! Also, I am limited to 1600x1200 resolution. If anyone knows of a good card that will do 1900x1400, is silent, give as good a 3D performance and works with the testing distribution of debian I would be very interested... Cheers. Johnny. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:26:42PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:08 -0800, Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Which is still less than exciting. And that's the default window size for glxgears. Full screen (maximized) is real ugly: 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS 165 frames in 5.0 seconds = 33.000 FPS 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS ..ever checked FPS in a movie theater? ;-) Oh, no. I can't stand watching those slowly flashing images! ;) -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:33:21 -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: Oh, no. I can't stand watching those slowly flashing images! ;) The trick is not to do acid before going to the movie. Peace, brother : -- paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Elie De Brauwer wrote: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Any other results ? Very interesting, you people already left? Running on my superduper Backstreet Ruby! with 2 17 monitors on 2 videocards: 00:0b.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x] (rev a2) 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV5M64 [RIVA TNT2 Model 64/Model 64 Pro] (rev 15) and my CPU: Detected 850.039 MHz processor. Then I get running glxgears on the first card, which is a PCI card and actually the second because it does not have the VGA Text Consoles: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 5028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1005.600 FPS 4495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 899.000 FPS 5568 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1113.600 FPS 5914 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1182.800 FPS 4612 frames in 5.0 seconds = 922.400 FPS 5730 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1146.000 FPS 5911 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1182.200 FPS and THEN running same on the second card: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 2567 frames in 5.0 seconds = 513.400 FPS 2124 frames in 5.0 seconds = 424.800 FPS 2401 frames in 5.0 seconds = 480.200 FPS 2577 frames in 5.0 seconds = 515.400 FPS 2115 frames in 5.0 seconds = 423.000 FPS 2417 frames in 5.0 seconds = 483.400 FPS 2578 frames in 5.0 seconds = 515.600 FPS So that shows that the MX440 has twice the speed of the TNT2 (and twice the price, but is it worth it?) But if I run BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, the MX440 shows: 1904 frames in 5.0 seconds = 380.800 FPS 2657 frames in 5.0 seconds = 531.400 FPS 2700 frames in 5.0 seconds = 540.000 FPS 2374 frames in 5.0 seconds = 474.800 FPS 2961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 592.200 FPS 2847 frames in 5.0 seconds = 569.400 FPS 2218 frames in 5.0 seconds = 443.600 FPS 3017 frames in 5.0 seconds = 603.400 FPS and the TNT2: 1199 frames in 5.0 seconds = 239.800 FPS 1244 frames in 5.0 seconds = 248.800 FPS 1072 frames in 5.0 seconds = 214.400 FPS 1350 frames in 5.0 seconds = 270.000 FPS 1278 frames in 5.0 seconds = 255.600 FPS 1003 frames in 5.0 seconds = 200.600 FPS 1373 frames in 5.0 seconds = 274.600 FPS 1710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 342.000 FPS 1974 frames in 5.0 seconds = 394.800 FPS Shows that the framerate dropped by half again for both but that the MX440 is still twice as fast. If I may summarize: Roberto Sanchez XP2500+ dri 2400 fps ati 1920 fps Paul Morgan 1.34 Ghz ati 4030 fps Johann Koenig 900 Mhz MX440SE 550 fps Jamin Collins XP2400+ FX5200 3700 fps myself 850 Mhz MX440 1150 fps TNT2 500 fps You guys still there? I don't understand why Johann gets only 550 fps with a processor and card similar to mine, should be twice as fast. The way glxgears is run? I just said glxgears. Statistically I am not sure we all ran the same benchmark. Seems safe to say you will speed up when you get a faster processor ;-) I attach ps axf Hugo. Script started on Mon Dec 1 09:44:05 2003 /home/hugoMon Dec 01-09:44:05HDB5# exitps axf PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 1 ?S 0:04 init [2] 2 ?SW 0:00 [keventd] 3 ?SW 0:00 [kapmd] 0 ?SWN0:00 [ksoftirqd_CPU0] 0 ?SW 0:00 [kswapd] 0 ?SW 0:00 [bdflush] 0 ?SW 0:00 [kupdated] 10 ?SW 0:00 [kseriod] 63 ?SW 0:00 [khubd] 630 ?S 0:00 /sbin/syslogd 636 ?S 0:00 /sbin/klogd 639 ?S 0:00 /usr/local/sbin/chronyd -r 660 ?S 0:00 /usr/sbin/cupsd 675 ?S 0:09 /usr/sbin/gpm -m /dev/input/mouse0br -t ps2 -r 15 -S /sbin/poweroff 680 ?S 0:00 /usr/sbin/inetd 685 ?S 0:00 /usr/bin/nasd -b 717 ?S 0:00 /usr/bin/X11/xfs -daemon 792 ?S 0:00 /bin/bash /etc/rc2.d/S20xprint posix_sh_forced start 795 ?S 0:00 \_ tee -a /dev/null 796 ?S 0:00 \_ logger -p lpr.notice -t Xprt_64 797 ?S 0:00 /usr/bin/Xprt -ac -pn -nolisten tcp -audit 4 -fp /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1,/usr/X11R6/lib/X1 838 ?S 0:00 /usr/sbin/atd 841 ?S 0:00 /usr/sbin/cron 845 ?S 0:00 /usr/sbin/apache 2579 ?S 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/apache 2580 ?S 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/apache 2581 ?S 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/apache 2582 ?S
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Monday December 1 at 09:46am Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys still there? I don't understand why Johann gets only 550 fps with a processor and card similar to mine, should be twice as fast. The way glxgears is run? I just said glxgears. Yeah, I was pretty curious about that too. I tried switching to TWM, but only got up to about 610fps. As far as I know, everything else is set up properly. Ah-ha. Did a couple things: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ killall setiathome [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo /etc/init.d/apache-ssl stop Stopping web server: apache-ssl. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo /etc/init.d/distmp3 stop Stopping distributed audio encoder: distmp3host. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo /etc/init.d/spamassassin stop Stopping SpamAssassin Mail Filter Daemon: spamd. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo /etc/init.d/webmin stop Stopping webmin: webmin. and now: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 4305 frames in 5.0 seconds = 861.000 FPS 4991 frames in 5.0 seconds = 998.200 FPS 4984 frames in 5.0 seconds = 996.800 FPS 5003 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.600 FPS 5038 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1007.600 FPS 5014 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1002.800 FPS Still pretty low, but a fair bit more respectable than 500! I suppose if I switch to TWM, and turn off xmms, sylpheed-claws, my sw-raid arrays, etc, I could probably get it up another 100-200. -- -johann koenig Now Playing: Sponge - Giants : Rotting Pinata Today is Setting Orange, the 43rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3169 My public pgp key: http://mental-graffiti.com/pgp/johannkoenig.pgp pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:12:07AM +0100, Elie De Brauwer wrote: Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Ok, you are making me feel bad. I've got an XP 1800+ on a MSI K7T266 board with a matrox G550 AGP running in 1280x960 and X 4.3.0.1. Noramlly run dual head xinerama but this is running with one screen setup: My fps is not quite so impressive as others have posted. Before I loaded my agpgart module I had: $ glxgears 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.000 FPS 916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.200 FPS After insmod agpgart 1334 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.800 FPS 1556 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.200 FPS 1557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.400 FPS 1557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 311.400 FPS Which is still less than exciting. And that's the default window size for glxgears. Full screen (maximized) is real ugly: 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS 165 frames in 5.0 seconds = 33.000 FPS 164 frames in 5.0 seconds = 32.800 FPS So is that just old, slow hardware[1], or should I be looking at other possible problems? Nothing jumps out in the logs: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ egrep '(\(EE\)|\(WW\))' /var/log/XFree86.0.log (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (WW) Open APM failed (/dev/apm_bios) (No such file or directory) (WW) Warning, couldn't open module mga_hal (EE) MGA: Failed to load module mga_hal (module does not exist, 0) (WW) MGA(0): Video BIOS info block not detected! [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fgrep -i agp /var/log/XFree86.0.log (--) PCI:*(1:0:0) Matrox Graphics, Inc. MGA G550 AGP rev 1, Mem @ 0xdc00/25, 0xdfefc000/14, 0xdf00/23, BIOS @ 0xdfec/17 mga2164w AGP, mgag100, mgag100 PCI, mgag200, mgag200 PCI, mgag400, (**) MGA(0): Option AGPMode 4 (**) MGA(0): Using AGP 4x mode (II) MGA(0): [agp] Mode 0x1f000207 [AGP 0x1106/0x3099; Card 0x102b/0x2527] (II) MGA(0): [agp] 12288 kB allocated with handle 0xfb52 (II) MGA(0): [agp] WARP microcode handle = 0xe000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] WARP microcode mapped at 0x42a15000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] Primary DMA handle = 0xe0008000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] Primary DMA mapped at 0x42a1d000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] DMA buffers handle = 0xe0108000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] DMA buffers mapped at 0x42b1d000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] agpTexture handle = 0xe0908000 (II) MGA(0): [agp] agpTexture size: 2816 kb (II) MGA(0): [agp] Status page mapped at 0x4001e000 [1] BTW -- I used to run swish-e indexing on this machine and it would index 25,000 files in about a minute. A few OS changes later, hard disk upgrades, and another 1/4 of RAM and now it indexes those same files in about 4 minutes. So maybe something else is going on, but I don't know where to start looking. Any ideas? Thanks, -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:15:32 +0100 Frank Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend you to buy a video card with a nVidia chipset. Why? I mailed the ATI support in this summer regarding their linux drivers, read the answer below. For me this was very disappointing. ATI seems to have changed their stance on Linux drivers lately. They integrated at least part of the development with the regular Catalyst releases and the last few drivers offered pretty good performance and compatibility. The only problems I encountered so far are a rather touchy AGPGART integrated driver, instability under kernel 2.6.0-testX (although you wonder why those are running anyway) and problems with TV overlay in conjunction with 2.6.0 kernels. 3D support absolutely rocks and 2D performence has gotten a *lot* better in the last few months. -- Got Backup? Jabber: Shadowdancer at jabber.fsinf.de pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Any other results ? -- http://www.de-brauwer.be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Elie De Brauwer wrote: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Any other results ? Athlon XP 2500+ (233 MHz FSB, or 333, but I don't remember) 1 GB RAM Raden 9000 Pro 128 MB nForce2 chipset (I know, nVidia + ATi == bad) X 4,3, 1280x1024 glxgears w/dri: 2400 fps glxgears w/ATi driver: 1920 fps -Roberto pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:12:07 +0100, Elie De Brauwer wrote: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Any other results ? AMD Athlon 1.34 GHz, 233MHz FSB 1GB DDR266 nonreg ATI XPERT 2000 AGP 32MB X 4.2.1, 1600x1200 4030 fps -- paul The average lifespan of a Web page today is 100 days. This is no way to run a culture. Internet Archive Board Chairman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:12:07 +0100, Elie De Brauwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears ..and when you run it full screen at 1600x1200? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sunday 30 November 2003 15:05, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:12:07 +0100, Elie De Brauwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears ..and when you run it full screen at 1600x1200? nope, default size -- http://www.de-brauwer.be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sunday November 30 at 10:12am Elie De Brauwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears Any other results ? (I didn't turn any of my processes of, attached is ps axf) Hardware: AMD Athlon T-Bird 900mhz 768mb Crucual PC2100 GeForce4 MX440SE 128mb IBM G74 1280x1024 24bit Matrox Millennium2 8mb Acer 79g 1280x1024 24bit FIC AN11 mb (VIA 8266/A/7) 2x Maxtor 160gb (7200, 8mb) 1x WD 40gb (7200, ?mb) Software: nvidia kernel driver 4496 Linux note 2.4.22 #1 Tue Nov 18 23:58:07 EST 2003 i686 GNU/Linux glxgears on the GeForce4: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 2710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 542.000 FPS 2836 frames in 5.0 seconds = 567.200 FPS 2812 frames in 5.0 seconds = 562.400 FPS 2725 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.000 FPS glxgears on the Matrox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears Error: couldn't get an RGB, Double-buffered visual -- -johann koenig Now Playing: Rancid - Maxwell Murder : ...And Out Came The Wolves Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 42nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3169 My public pgp key: http://mental-graffiti.com/pgp/johannkoenig.pgp running Description: Binary data pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nvidia vs ati
(I didn't turn any of my processes of, attached is ps axf) Hardware: AMD Athlon T-Bird 900mhz 768mb Crucual PC2100 GeForce4 MX440SE 128mb IBM G74 1280x1024 24bit Matrox Millennium2 8mb Acer 79g 1280x1024 24bit FIC AN11 mb (VIA 8266/A/7) 2x Maxtor 160gb (7200, 8mb) 1x WD 40gb (7200, ?mb) Software: nvidia kernel driver 4496 Linux note 2.4.22 #1 Tue Nov 18 23:58:07 EST 2003 i686 GNU/Linux glxgears on the GeForce4: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 2710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 542.000 FPS 2836 frames in 5.0 seconds = 567.200 FPS 2812 frames in 5.0 seconds = 562.400 FPS 2725 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.000 FPS glxgears on the Matrox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears Error: couldn't get an RGB, Double-buffered visual A bit more specific issues on my first results. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 19475 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3895.000 FPS 22077 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4415.400 FPS 22000 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4400.000 FPS 22026 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.200 FPS 22028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.600 FPS 22080 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4416.000 FPS 22027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.400 FPS On the default window size, when i manually maximize the screen to 1600x1200 framerate drops to 480 fps 1: nvidia: loading NVIDIA Linux x86 nvidia.o Kernel Module 1.0-4496 Wed Jul 16 19:03:09 PDT 2003 qntal:/home/helios# lspci | grep FX 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV35 [GeForce FX 5900 Ultra] (rev a1) qntal:/home/helios# dmesg | grep rocessor Detected 2806.445 MHz processor. CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 Booting processor 1/1 eip 3000 CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 Total of 2 processors activated (11206.65 BogoMIPS). All processors have done init_idle ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports C1) ACPI: Processor [CPU1] (supports C1) -- http://www.de-brauwer.be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Nicos Gollan wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:15:32 +0100 Frank Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend you to buy a video card with a nVidia chipset. Why? I mailed the ATI support in this summer regarding their linux drivers, read the answer below. For me this was very disappointing. ATI seems to have changed their stance on Linux drivers lately. They integrated at least part of the development with the regular Catalyst releases and the last few drivers offered pretty good performance and compatibility. The only problems I encountered so far are a rather touchy AGPGART integrated driver, instability under kernel 2.6.0-testX (although you wonder why those are running anyway) and problems with TV overlay in conjunction with 2.6.0 kernels. 3D support absolutely rocks and 2D performence has gotten a *lot* better in the last few months. the only major (for me) ATI problem is that you cannot run more than one X server, if you run another X server it will freeze the machine (completely, hw reset required), that's what it does with Radeon 9800 (and I've read about it somewhere, seems like a known issue, IIRC it was on the rage3d.com forums) also: ATI (probably all of them, tech support said DVI autodetection works the same on all ATI cards) and Nvidia cards (FX 5600 Ultra) do not recognize Apple HD Cinema 23 inch display during boot, it's connected via DVI and it's not autodetected (both win xp and XFree86 can use it once told explicitly) erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:12:07AM +0100, Elie De Brauwer wrote: On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:15, Frank Thomas wrote: Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Let's do some benchmarking I have a PIV 2.8 ghz (800 mhz fsb), 1 gig ddr 400 ram and an geforce fx 5900 ultra with 256 meg ram. When running X at 1600x1200 resolution I get about 4800 fps in glxgears AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ 512 Megs DDR 2100 GeForce FX 5200 128Meg X = 1280x1024x16 With the above and a few nominal applications running I get just over 3700 FPS from glxgears. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Elie De Brauwer wrote: (I didn't turn any of my processes of, attached is ps axf) Hardware: AMD Athlon T-Bird 900mhz 768mb Crucual PC2100 GeForce4 MX440SE 128mb IBM G74 1280x1024 24bit Matrox Millennium2 8mb Acer 79g 1280x1024 24bit FIC AN11 mb (VIA 8266/A/7) 2x Maxtor 160gb (7200, 8mb) 1x WD 40gb (7200, ?mb) Software: nvidia kernel driver 4496 Linux note 2.4.22 #1 Tue Nov 18 23:58:07 EST 2003 i686 GNU/Linux glxgears on the GeForce4: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 2710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 542.000 FPS 2836 frames in 5.0 seconds = 567.200 FPS 2812 frames in 5.0 seconds = 562.400 FPS 2725 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.000 FPS glxgears on the Matrox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears Error: couldn't get an RGB, Double-buffered visual A bit more specific issues on my first results. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 19475 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3895.000 FPS 22077 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4415.400 FPS 22000 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4400.000 FPS 22026 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.200 FPS 22028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.600 FPS 22080 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4416.000 FPS 22027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4405.400 FPS On the default window size, when i manually maximize the screen to 1600x1200 framerate drops to 480 fps 1: nvidia: loading NVIDIA Linux x86 nvidia.o Kernel Module 1.0-4496 Wed Jul 16 19:03:09 PDT 2003 qntal:/home/helios# lspci | grep FX 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV35 [GeForce FX 5900 Ultra] (rev a1) qntal:/home/helios# dmesg | grep rocessor Detected 2806.445 MHz processor. CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 Booting processor 1/1 eip 3000 CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 Total of 2 processors activated (11206.65 BogoMIPS). All processors have done init_idle ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports C1) ACPI: Processor [CPU1] (supports C1) What a difference this is :'( [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ glxgears 1650 frames in 5.0 seconds = 330.000 FPS 1849 frames in 5.0 seconds = 369.800 FPS 1849 frames in 5.0 seconds = 369.800 FPS 1856 frames in 5.0 seconds = 371.200 FPS 1749 frames in 5.0 seconds = 349.800 FPS (default window size) NVIDIA Linux x86 nvidia.o Kernel Module 1.0-4496 nVidia Corporation NV11DDR [GeForce2 MX 100 DDR/200 DDR] (rev b2) CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU1000MHz stepping 01 CPU clock speed is 1299.9479 MHz host bus clock speed is 129.9947 MH CPU: L1 I cache: 16K, L1 D cache: 16K CPU: L2 cache: 256K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
On Sunday November 30 at 08:30pm John Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a difference this is :'( Yeah, the differences seem exponential. I thought some of the people accidental added extra digits when I saw I maxed at about 610 with TWM. -- -johann koenig Now Playing: Rollins Band - Shame : Come In And Burn Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 42nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3169 My public pgp key: http://mental-graffiti.com/pgp/johannkoenig.pgp pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
nvidia vs ati
I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. ~gerard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia vs ati
Gerard Ceraso wrote: I am planning on getting a new video card. I have a nvidia geforce2 right now and it works great under linux. I have not had any problems. I have noticed that some of the Ati cards seem to have a bit better performance in some of the tests on the hardware review sites. I was wondering how the Ati support for linux is. My system is currently has an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with an AMD 2400+ and 1G of 3200 ram. Hi Gerard! I recommend you to buy a video card with a nVidia chipset. Why? I mailed the ATI support in this summer regarding their linux drivers, read the answer below. For me this was very disappointing. Now there are drivers for radeon based video cards, but I think nVidias driver perform much better under linux. Regarding Linux, _RADEON_9500_PRO, _AGP, _Installation. In this chart (http://www.ati.com/developer/altoschart.pdf) it is said, that ATI itself provide 3D support for my Radeon card (3D support starting from ... are provided by ATI). But the driver web formular told me graphic driver for Linux are not supported!? DRI-Project modules and XFree 4.2 driver do not support r300 chips. XFree 4.3 only support 2D for Radeon 9500Pro. Regardless ATI does NOT support Linux or XFree86. (the drivers are released as a courtesy) -Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
