On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Ondrej Zary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 24 June 2008 22:42:44 you wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ondrej Zary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > On Tuesday 24 June 2008 20:32:34 Corbin Simpson wrote: >> >> Alberto Hernando wrote: >> >> > El Lunes, 23 de Junio de 2008 06:02, Alex Deucher escribió: >> >> >> IIRC the gl requirements of the mplayer gl output are probably more >> >> >> than the r128 3D engine can handle without software fallbacks, and >> >> >> I'd imaging you are hitting quite a few. >> >> > >> >> > Hi. >> >> > >> >> > If this is so, considering that glxgears asks for a lot of cpu too... >> >> > does it mean that the driver lacks a few features? >> >> > OTOH, I've built the same in another box. It's one with and igp9100 >> >> > chipset. And I get more or less the same: glxgears not too fast (I >> >> > don't have numbers, sorry) but also asking for a lot of cpu. That one >> >> > is ati-6.8.191. But in this case what I really want is tv-out, so I >> >> > don't care much. >> >> >> >> Gears Is Not A Benchmark. :3 >> >> >> >> mplayer -vo gl is slow for a handful of reasons; typically, mplayer -vo >> >> gl2 will be much faster. I don't know which one will perform better on >> >> the r1xx series; it's entirely possible that both of them require >> >> features that the r1xx just doesn't support. >> >> >> >> However, on Radeons, Xv is always going to be fastest because it uses 3D >> >> engine code directly, without going through DRI, and it should be quite >> >> suitable for your needs. >> > >> > Xv is best on Rage 128 too. Last time I tried it, there was a problem >> > with 16MB card - Xv acceleration didn't work when DRI was enabled - >> > looked like driver limitation. >> >> Depends on the size of your screen. Currently the front, back, and >> depth buffers are statically allocated when the DRI is active so that >> doesn't leave much ram left over for things like Xv. > > That was at 1280x1024. I had to change the card because of this. Is that > limitation of the driver? Is a "memory manager" (like TTM) going to fix > problems like this one? (I hate to change hardware because of a software > problems.) >
yes software limitation. 1280x1024 uses 7.5 MB for front/back/depth buffers at 16 bpp or 15 MB at 32 bpp. You should have been ok at 16 bpp, but 32 would have left you only 1 MB or everything else (cursors, textures, offscreen for XAA, Xv, etc.). A new unified memory manager would solve this since everything (dri, Xv, EXA, etc.) could use a common pool and they'd only allocate memory when they needed it rather than requiring static allocations. Alex _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
