I know I run the risk of bugging you too much but this should be the last for now. I did some experimenting with the hardware acceleration setup and found that the ScreenToScreenCopy is the problem but only if the window gets large enough. In the Cadence tools, this screen to screen copy seems to provide the largest speedup until the window gets larger than about 1000x1000. After that point the performance goes off a cliff and is much much worse than unaccelerated (completely unusable). In windows less than about 1000x100, the performance is much better with the screen to screen copy enabled. This is in 4.3.0 with the latest code from CVS for nv directory. I retried 4.2.1 with similar results.

Thanks,
Malcolm

On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Mark Vojkovich wrote:


I've just tried these modes on my GeForce2 MX:


2048x1536 @ 60 Hz (266.9 MHz)
1920x1440 @ 60 Hz (234.0 MHz)

 and both worked fine with the "nv" driver for me.  You're
saying they work fine for you in the "nvidia" driver but not
"nv"?  Are they the same refresh rate in both cases?
Note that your monitor claims it doesn't have enough bandwidth
for either of these modes (max 210 pixel clock).

(II) NV(0): Ranges: V min: 48 V max: 160 Hz, H min: 30 H max: 121 kHz, PixCl
oc
k max 210 MHz

I could see the case where the "nvidia" driver would lower the
refresh rate automatically because of that but the "nv" driver wouldn't.
The ghosting you are describing is typical of the monitor or
monitor cable not being able to support such high frequencies, leading
to artifacts. My monitor claims to have 250 MHz bandwidth. It
looks OK in both these modes.



Mark.




On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Malcolm Stevens wrote:

Regarding: nv driver misbehaves on geforce 2 MX @ greater than 1600x1200
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


_______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86

Reply via email to