glxgears framerates, please
Anthony
I have an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder card (which is a 7200 with TV stuff
added), and I was wondering if people out there with this card, or a
similar one, could post their glxgears framerates. (I don't play
games, but I do love the Really Slick Screensavers
(http://rss-glx.sourceforge.net/), and some of them don't run very
smoothly.) My system is a Pentium III 850MHz with 512MB RAM, and I'm
running at 1280x1024, 75Hz, 24bit color. (Dropping down to 16bit
color increases the framerates by about 25%.) Here's what I get:
default window size, approx. 30% cpu usage: around 937 FPS
full-screen, approx. 0% cpu usage: around 85 FPS
I'm using the Gatos drivers for the video card, and running XFree86
v4.3.0. Here's my XF86Config details:
------------------------------------------------------------
Section "Module"
Load "dbe"
SubSection "extmod"
Option "omit xfree86-dga"
EndSubSection
Load "type1"
Load "freetype"
Load "speedo"
Load "glx"
Load "dri"
# found around the net; these don't affect the framerate:
# Load "GLcore"
# Load "bitmap"
# Load "ddc"
# Load "int10"
# Load "record"
# Load "vbe"
EndSection
Section "DRI"
Mode 0666
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "vidcard"
VendorName "ATI"
Driver "ati"
# AGP modes 2 and 4 don't affect the framerate:
Option "AGPMode" "1"
EndSection
------------------------------------------------------------
And here's what lspci -v says about my video card:
------------------------------------------------------------
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R100 QD
[Radeon 7200] (prog-if 00 [VGA])
Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon AIW
Flags: bus master, stepping, 66Mhz, medium devsel, latency 32,
IRQ 5
Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=128M]
I/O ports at c000 [size=256]
Memory at f5000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=512K]
Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled] [size=128K]
Capabilities: [58] AGP version 2.0
Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Anthony
http://nodivisions.com/
John-Paul Stewart
>
> Hello,
>
> I have an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder card (which is a 7200 with TV stuff
> added), and I was wondering if people out there with this card, or a
> similar one, could post their glxgears framerates. (I don't play
> games, but I do love the Really Slick Screensavers
> (http://rss-glx.sourceforge.net/), and some of them don't run very
> smoothly.) My system is a Pentium III 850MHz with 512MB RAM, and I'm
> running at 1280x1024, 75Hz, 24bit color. (Dropping down to 16bit
> color increases the framerates by about 25%.) Here's what I get:
>
> default window size, approx. 30% cpu usage: around 937 FPS
That seems a little low. I used to use an "original" Radeon on a 1GHz
P-III and IIRC I was getting about 1500 fps out of glxgears.
What's the output of 'glxinfo | grep renderer'?
Anthony
> >
> > default window size, approx. 30% cpu usage: around 937 FPS
>
> That seems a little low. I used to use an "original" Radeon on a 1GHz
> P-III and IIRC I was getting about 1500 fps out of glxgears.
>
> What's the output of 'glxinfo | grep renderer'?
bash-2.05b$ glxinfo |grep renderer
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Radeon 20020611 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE TCL
Anything suspicious there?
-Anthony
http://nodivisions.com/
John-Paul Stewart
Nope. "Mesa Indirect" would have indicated software rendering, but
you're using hardware rendering AFAICT. Although, I do notice that the
date stamp is 1.5 years old (20020611). I don't know if that's still
current (but it may well be).
faeychild
> Hello,
>
> I have an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder card (which is a 7200 with TV stuff
> added), and I was wondering if people out there with this card, or a
> similar one, could post their glxgears framerates. (I don't play
> games, but I do love the Really Slick Screensavers
> (http://rss-glx.sourceforge.net/), and some of them don't run very
> smoothly.) My system is a Pentium III 850MHz with 512MB RAM, and I'm
> running at 1280x1024, 75Hz, 24bit color. (Dropping down to 16bit
> color increases the framerates by about 25%.) Here's what I get:
>
> default window size, approx. 30% cpu usage: around 937 FPS
> full-screen, approx. 0% cpu usage: around 85 FPS
How can you have a frame rate greater than your monitors refresh
rate .
--
faeychild.
Anthony
Interesting question. My guess would be that the system is capable of
rendering the frames at the given rate, but that is independent of the
rate at which the monitor refreshes. You don't see all 85 frames, but
it's useful for there to be as many as possible, because even while
dropping some of the frames, the motion will appear more fluid if the
hardware is generating frames and getting them out the door so it can
get to the next ones in time. But again, that's just a guess.
-Anthony
http://nodivisions.com/
Tim McCoy
should spit out a hell amount of frames. For example, my
Athlon 1800XP
256MB DDR333 (PC2700) RAM
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX460 (64MB)
XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.22 (custom), Debian Sid
800x600x16: 3500fps
Celeron 400Mhz
128MB PC100 RAM
NeoMagic 4MB Video (hardware accelerated)
XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.21-ac4 (custom), Debian id
1024x768x16: 80fps
Hope that helps... interestingly, you mention CPU usage is very low? No
matter what Res you run this at, it should flatline your CPU (100% usage)
as it's rendering a 3D scene... Check output of "ldd
/usr/X11R6/bin/glxgears" and ensure it is using your ATI drivers.
Cheers
Tim
--
http://members.swiftdsl.com.au/~tmccoy
MSN: tims...@hotmail.com
ICQ: 160341067
baskitcaise
>>
>> How can you have a frame rate greater than your monitors refresh
>> rate .
By running with the sync turned off
--
Mark
Twixt hill and high water.
N.Wales, UK.
Email is spam trap try baskitcaise at gmx dot co dot uk
Anthony
> I know this doesn't help much, but a decent hardware accelerated machine
> should spit out a hell amount of frames. For example, my
>
> Athlon 1800XP
> 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) RAM
> NVIDIA GeForce4 MX460 (64MB)
> XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.22 (custom), Debian Sid
>
> 800x600x16: 3500fps
At that res & bit depth, I do a little better: about 1220 FPS. And
your video card is beefier than mine. Still, I think mine can do
better somehow; I do think something's holding it back.
> Celeron 400Mhz
> 128MB PC100 RAM
> NeoMagic 4MB Video (hardware accelerated)
> XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.21-ac4 (custom), Debian id
>
> 1024x768x16: 80fps
That sounds like software acceleration, not hardware acceleration.
But could be that on an old 4MB card, hw accel isn't much better than
a 400MHz CPU.
> Hope that helps... interestingly, you mention CPU usage is very low? No
> matter what Res you run this at, it should flatline your CPU (100% usage)
> as it's rendering a 3D scene...
I don't think that's true. I think the whole point of
hardware-accelerated 3D is that the CPU *isn't* doing the work, the
graphics hardware is.
> Check output of "ldd
> /usr/X11R6/bin/glxgears" and ensure it is using your ATI drivers.
Yep, it is. I had a heck of a time getting them to work, and until I
did, I was only getting about 75 FPS no matter what resolution or bit
depth I ran at. That's because my CPU was doing all the work, and
then it *was* peaked at 100%.
-Anthony
http://nodivisions.com/
John-Paul Stewart
>
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > default window size, approx. 30% cpu usage: around 937 FPS
> > full-screen, approx. 0% cpu usage: around 85 FPS
>
> How can you have a frame rate greater than your monitors refresh
> rate .
That's easy: not all frames drawn get displayed.
Tim McCoy
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:06:27 +1100, Tim McCoy wrote:
>
>> Athlon 1800XP
>> 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) RAM
>> NVIDIA GeForce4 MX460 (64MB)
>> XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.22 (custom), Debian Sid
>>
>> 800x600x16: 3500fps
>
> With a machine like that, why do you run 800x600? Hooked up to an old 14"
> monitor maybe?
...and hence the main reason is that I can't get a refresh rate greater
than 60Hz @ 1024x768 - which gives me headaches (and the shites!)
Tim McCoy
> Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> How can you have a frame rate greater than your monitors refresh
>>> rate .
>
> By running with the sync turned off
The graphics hardware is generating a single image (frame) at a number of
times per second. The greater the frames, obviously the more fluid the
movement. At the same time, our visual systems see fluid movement at more
like anything above 30-35fps. So it doesn't really matter all that much
except for benchmarking
The refresh rate of a CRT is how often the pixels are rescanned by the
electron beam to enforce their colour properties. Hence this is a hardware
setting (the reason you see flickering at low rates is the pixels are
fading back to black). To two don't necessarily have relate,
as our visual systems again play nice with the hardware...
Tim McCoy
Yeah - the Laptop card (NeoMagic) is optimised for a direct draw type
system, as I can play DVDs and other movies on my laptop with no issues
(MPlayer and ALSA). I still find it strange that you aren't getting CPU
maximisation... what are you reporting your usage from? I tend to use
GKrellm or occasionally, top. Most 3D rendering takes up more than just
your AGP power.
A 3D scene must be rendered, and changed. Much of this changing is simple
transformations around a particular viewing axes. These may be hardware
accelerated, but they are not done my the hardware alone. The code must
call a part of the hardware that draws the scene, and hence CPU
utilisation will generally flat-line at 100% due to the large nature of
the system calls. Either that, or you have an extremely funky graphics
card! Maybe NVIDIA just do things differently, but something else may be
throttling your CPU back... Run a similar demo under Windows and you'll
probably find you flatline the CPU!
The key is that your CPU isn't doing much of the graphics work directly,
and hence has other time to make system calls, and hence makes them more
often (with a high FPS value resulting).
Tim McCoy
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:06:27 +1100, Tim McCoy wrote:
>
>> Athlon 1800XP
>> 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) RAM
>> NVIDIA GeForce4 MX460 (64MB)
>> XFree 4.2.1, Kernel 2.4.22 (custom), Debian Sid
>>
>> 800x600x16: 3500fps
>
> With a machine like that, why do you run 800x600? Hooked up to an old 14"
> monitor maybe?
...an older 15" monitor. Damn student budget ;)