Hi,
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
resolutions:
1152x864: 155.2 fps
1024x768: 165.6 fps
800x600: 209.6 fps
640x480:
[Sorry, my last message got sent a little early.]
Hi,
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
resolutions:
1152x864: 155.2 fps
Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
resolutions:
1152x864: 155.2 fps
1024x768: 165.6 fps
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 15:35, Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
resolutions:
But with the
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
resolutions:
1152x864: 155.2 fps
1024x768: 165.6 fps
800x600: 209.6 fps
640x480:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 15:35, Felix Kühling wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out that the 3d performance of the mach64 branch (in
terms of glxgears frame rates) is related to the physical screen
resolution. I got the following glxgears frame rates with different
You aren't running the app maximized, are you? :-)
No :-), I the app is always the same size.
I thought about it again and made a plot of the fps over the pixel
clock. This indicates that the different performance is *only* related
to the CRT refresh. This is the Octave code I used to generate
I thought about it again and made a plot of the fps over the pixel
clock. This indicates that the different performance is *only* related
to the CRT refresh. This is the Octave code I used to
generate the plot:
modes=[125.00; 115.50; 69.65; 45.80; 57.75; 34.83];
fps =[155.20;
If you had changed the last but one with the last but two value,
then your eps would have looked nicer.
I chose that order intentionally. It is the order of screen
resolutions. The last two modes are double scan modes. Even though they
have a lower resolution they are slower, since the pixel
