| 1 |
On 06/21/2012 12:47 PM, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/20/2012 07:46 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 20/06/12 17:04, walt wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 06/18/2012 02:29 AM, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> 120615 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> 2012/6/15 Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> |
| 7 |
>>>>>> after installing Kernel 3.4 , Nvidia-drivers 295.49 wouldn't compile. |
| 8 |
>>>>> I can see that 295.53 and 295.59 are available. Use 295.59. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> I've updated to the latest testing 302.17 & it's working ok so far. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> I just did the same update. I thought at first everything was okay, |
| 13 |
>>> then I ran glxgears, which runs at 1/5 normal speed. Going back to |
| 14 |
>>> 295.59 fixed it. Very puzzling, since there was nothing unusual in |
| 15 |
>>> Xorg.0.log. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=176815 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Would you mind translating that bulletin into Greek so I can |
| 20 |
> understand it? ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Aha. I re-emerged nvidia-drivers-302.17 and the lightbulb lit up: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
$glxgears |
| 25 |
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be |
| 26 |
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate. |
| 27 |
302 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.292 FPS |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Sure enough, my monitor's vertical refresh rate is 60Hz. I guess the |
| 30 |
logic is that the video card needn't render more frames than the monitor |
| 31 |
can display each second? |
Archives