Hi, Somehow I deleted the reply from Claude Jones, probably a bit too quick with the keys, and I only saw that there was a reply, in the archives, because I was looking for something else! Oh well... > Presumably, using the open source driver would eliminate the > headache of having to update the kernel-module with each kernel update, > right? > Correct. The radeon driver is just like any of the other drivers you use on your computer for mouse, network, etc. You don't need to do anything with them just because the kernel has changed. > > my glxinfo now shows: > > OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. > OpenGL renderer string: MOBILITY RADEON 9600 > OpenGL version string: 2.0.6334 (8.34.8) > So long as glxinfo says you are using direct rendering, then you are okay. >> I get: >> >> [root ash ~]# glxgears >> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b >> 9319 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1863.677 FPS >> 8756 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1751.074 FPS >> 10568 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2113.578 FPS >> 12001 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2400.160 FPS >> 12645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2528.954 FPS >> 10775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2154.851 FPS >> > > I'm now getting: > > $ glxgears > 14658 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2931.519 FPS > 26963 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5392.432 FPS > 26962 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5392.329 FPS > 26963 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5392.544 FPS > Your number of 9000 frames is what catches my attention - as you can > see, I'm now getting close to 5400 frames, which is considerably less > than you. > No, you are getting better performance than I am :-) I get 9,000 frames per 5 seconds, whereas you get 26,000. I'm not sure why, but would not be surprised if the cards are slightly different - a '9600' against a '9600 Pro' perhaps. > I just tried opening KDE Konsole, which is the KDE terminal window, > and running glxgears from there produces a visible glxgears window, > but horrible performance: > The figures from me were from using Konsole. My understanding is that glxgears is not actually a very good indicator of performance. I can't remember the reasoning, so you may want to search/google for more info on that. However, I use it just to see if it gives a figure that I expect. For me around 2,000 FPS is what I usually get, and it (the card) seems to be working fine at that. > As you can see, you're running composite enable and mine is disabled > Yes, I seem to remember that I had to enable 'composite' to get beryl to work. However, I see that you are still using the fglrx driver. It is difficult for me to do a direct comparison because I would have to re-install the ati driver stuff, the start up script, the 'enable-fglrx-display' command or whatever it was! :-) I found it much easier to just use the radeon driver. Having said that though, I do not use 3D for much at all, so it may be that you do get better performance with fglrx rather than radeon. I have an opengl 3d screen-saver, a 3D game and, as mentioned, have used beryl - although I tend not to use it now, a bit too much eye-candy! The point is that they all work fine though. Final point is that you may want to look through the 'radeon' man page. There are several options in there that relate to performance. I have tried some, but can't say I have noticed any great improvement. The 'AGPFastWrite' tends to hang my system, so I don't use that one :-) The GARTSize option can improve performance but doesn't seem to be mentioned in the man page. It defaults to 8Mb, but can be increased to 64. http://free3d.org/ may provide some useful info too. John. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 233914 E-mail: John.Horne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fax: +44 (0)1752 233839
