1 |
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Daniel Tihelka <dtihelka@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
<SNIP> |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> What do you see in glxgears? |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> I see this: |
10 |
> Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be |
11 |
> approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate. |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
I get this same message on my Intel graphics machine, and I get the |
15 |
same frame rates which is what the message says... |
16 |
|
17 |
> 273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.532 FPS |
18 |
> 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.634 FPS |
19 |
> 301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.037 FPS |
20 |
> 288 frames in 5.1 seconds = 56.852 FPS |
21 |
> 212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 42.366 FPS <-- window maximized from here |
22 |
> 222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 44.352 FPS |
23 |
> 216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 43.021 FPS |
24 |
> 205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 40.716 FPS |
25 |
> |
26 |
> It is not so much and I don't know if it is the top performance of the |
27 |
> gallium driver (btw, I really believe it has large potential), or if it |
28 |
> could be improved further more (e.g. by compilling lvm into it), but it is |
29 |
> not critical for me now. |
30 |
> Dan |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
My ATI doesn't have the 'Running synchronized to the vertical refresh' |
34 |
message. It does about 200FPS. On my wife's box I used the closed |
35 |
source nvidia driver and get about 2500 FPS. |
36 |
|
37 |
- Mark |