John Lightsey schrieb:
I gave up on specviewperf after waiting over half an hour for the Voodoo 5 to
run it. It's just too time consuming. Are there one or two tests that stand
out in particular?
I'd propose 3dsmax-02, ugs-03 and proe-02 since in the Radeon driver
comparison done by Ronald
John Lightsey wrote:
Once I have all the benchmarks together I'll make some pretty little graphs.
Soany suggestions, comments, feedback?
First off, great work! Hopefully you'll be willing to re-run those
tests to look for regressions in future releases. ;)
I have only two criticisms.
On Monday 23 August 2004 12:36, Ian Romanick wrote:
John Lightsey wrote:
Once I have all the benchmarks together I'll make some pretty little
graphs.
Soany suggestions, comments, feedback?
First off, great work! Hopefully you'll be willing to re-run those
tests to look for
This is my third attempt sending this email. If sourceforge decides to let
all three copies through at once, you'll have to forgive me.
A while back it was suggested that benchmarking all of the various
DRI-compatible video cards might provide some interesting information. I
just finished my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 22 August 2004 02:16, John Lightsey wrote:
At any rate, here are the results of the first run. If anyone has
suggestions for fixing any of the cards which failed in one way or
another, I would really appreciate the feedback.
Awesome
Diamond Speedstar a90 16MB (savage 4 pro+) Lots of
lockups.
I can confirm that this card locks up very frequently.
One way which I have found to immediately lock it up
is by attempting to use GL_NV_texgen_reflection.
Hope this helps the savage developers.
On Sunday 22 August 2004 08:16, John Lightsey wrote:
Rage 128 Pro (r128) At 640x480 this one seemed semi-reliable. At 1024x768
it usually froze. glxgears gave this one 518.6 fps.
I also encountered this instability on a mobility M6 (mobile Rage128)
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:16:18 -0500
John Lightsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diamond Speedstar a90 16MB (savage 4 pro+) Lots of lockups. glxgears gave
this a disappointing 229 fps.
There are rumors about some Savage4's that lock up when reading the
status register. :-/ A workaround would be
On 22.08.2004, at 08:16, John Lightsey wrote:
glxgears - let it run for 1 minute then marked down the highest score
how reproducable and meaningful is a highest score? I don't know, but I
got a feeling that using a mean or a median might be of better
reproducability and also might better reflect
On Sunday 22 August 2004 04:57, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
On 22.08.2004, at 08:16, John Lightsey wrote:
glxgears - let it run for 1 minute then marked down the highest score
how reproducable and meaningful is a highest score? I don't know, but I
got a feeling that using a mean or a
On Sunday 22 August 2004 04:59, Felix Kühling wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:16:18 -0500
John Lightsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diamond Speedstar a90 16MB (savage 4 pro+) Lots of lockups. glxgears
gave this a disappointing 229 fps.
There are rumors about some Savage4's that lock up when
On Sul, 2004-08-22 at 07:16, John Lightsey wrote:
I shut off most of the services on the machine. rcconf shows klogd, makedev,
and sysklogd as the only services active at boot. The kernel used was
2.6.7-1-k7 from Debian.
Which DRI kernel modules - the CVS tree provided ones or the 2.6.7
Which DRI kernel modules - the CVS tree provided ones or the 2.6.7
kernel ones ?
there should be no regression between them, I'd expect the currrnt CVS
ones might in theory be slower than 2.6.7 but I haven't seen any
regressions on the radeon modules while I've been doing the function table
On Sul, 2004-08-22 at 13:11, Dave Airlie wrote:
there should be no regression between them, I'd expect the currrnt CVS
ones might in theory be slower than 2.6.7 but I haven't seen any
regressions on the radeon modules while I've been doing the function table
work, 2.6.7 is pretty close to CVS
A while back it was suggested that benchmarking all of the various
DRI-compatible video cards might provide some interesting information. I
just finished my first attempt at performing a slew of benchmarks with this
goal, and the results haven't been great. It's certainly possible that (a)
On Sunday 22 August 2004 01:52, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sunday 22 August 2004 02:16, John Lightsey wrote:
At any rate, here are the results of the first run. If anyone has
suggestions for fixing any of the cards which failed in one way or
another, I would really appreciate the feedback.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I sent this message earlier, but it doesn't seem to have made it through.
Subject: First DRI uber-benchmark
Date: Saturday 21 August 2004 13:17
From: John Lightsey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A while back it was suggested
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 11:40 +0200, Steffen Hein wrote:
On Sunday 22 August 2004 08:16, John Lightsey wrote:
Rage 128 Pro (r128) At 640x480 this one seemed semi-reliable. At 1024x768
it usually froze. glxgears gave this one 518.6 fps.
I also encountered this instability on a mobility M6
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 01:16 -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
This is my third attempt sending this email. If sourceforge decides to let
all three copies through at once, you'll have to forgive me.
It's mostly me administrating the dri-{announce,devel,patches} at the
moment... if anyone (preferably
On Sunday 22 August 2004 05:39, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2004-08-22 at 07:16, John Lightsey wrote:
I shut off most of the services on the machine. rcconf shows klogd,
makedev, and sysklogd as the only services active at boot. The kernel
used was 2.6.7-1-k7 from Debian.
Which DRI kernel
You're right. It's a 8mb mobility M3 in a dell latitude c600.
Sorry, not my notebook ;-)
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off
Here are the FGLRX and Nvidia scores for comparison...
The Nvidia drivers were built from the packages in Debian non-free (1.0.6111)
and the FGLRX drivers were built from Flavio Stanchina's packages (3.11.1).
BFG FX5200 Ultra 128MB
glxgears - 3934.8
q2 640x480 - 337.1
q2 800x600 - 312.3
q2
In gmane.comp.video.dri.devel, you wrote:
I looked around for some free software programs that would calculate an
average framerate rather than simply showing a FPS counter, but I didn't find
any. Something based on crystal-space would be particularly nice.
Have a look at the samples
On Sul, 2004-08-22 at 21:51, John Lightsey wrote:
So... A Radeon DDR 32MB running DRI seems to be faster than a TNT2 32MB.
Matrox G400 seems to be faster on everything other than Unreal Tournament.
I'll send a link to the graphs on Monday.
Maybe I should get the Voodoo2 DRI written. The
At least on the fedora-test list the new Xorg CVS seems to be showing up
some i815/830 works with 2.6.8.1 but not 2.6.old kernels.
hmm interesting.. I'll try and get Xorg on one of my i810 systems in the
next day or two...
Dave.
--
David Airlie, Software Engineer
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:16:18AM -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
Matrox G400 32MB (mga)
glxgears - 1000.2
q2 640x480 - 62.9
q2 800x600 - 52.3
q2 1024x768 - 40.2
q3 640x480 - 65.9
q3 800x600 - 51.4
q3 1024x768 - 36.4
rtcw 640x480 - 42.3
rtcw 800x600 - 33.5
rtcw 1024x768 - 24.7
ut
On Sunday 22 August 2004 18:37, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:16:18AM -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
Matrox G400 32MB (mga)
...
I'm aware of two perfomance bottlenecks in the driver.
Number one is that it always uses synchronous DMA. I have asynchronous
DMA working just fine
27 matches
Mail list logo
