Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 27 April 2007 08:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SD 0.46 1-2 FPS
cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS
cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996
cfs v5 nice -10 60-65 FPS
the problem is, t
On Thursday 26 April 2007 18:56, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2007 08:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>> SD 0.46 1-2 FPS
> > >>> cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS
> > >>> cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996
> > >>
> > >>cfs
On Friday 27 April 2007 08:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> SD 0.46 1-2 FPS
> >>> cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS
> >>> cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996
> >>
> >>cfs v5 nice -10 60-65 FPS
> >
> > the problem is, the glxgears p
* Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SD 0.46 1-2 FPS
> > cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS
> > cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996
>cfs v5 nice -10 60-65 FPS
the problem is, the glxgears portion of this test is an _inverse_
testcase.
The reason? glxgears on true 3D hardware w
On Monday 23 April 2007 19:45, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 17:57, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > I am not sure a binary attachment will go thru, I will move to the web
> > ste if not.
>
> I did a quick try of this script here.
>
> With SD 0.46 with X at nice 0 I was getting 1-2 frame
On Monday 23 April 2007 17:57, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I am not sure a binary attachment will go thru, I will move to the web
> ste if not.
I did a quick try of this script here.
With SD 0.46 with X at nice 0 I was getting 1-2 frames per second. I decided
to try cfs v5.
The option disable auto
6 matches
Mail list logo