Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:01 -0800 From: Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DRM update for testing Message-ID: <1135113901.75547.43.camel@leguin> In-Reply-To: <200512200943.jBK9hZEK081362@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200512200943.jBK9hZEK081362@lurza.secnetix.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 10:43 +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu> wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > Freddie Cash <fcash@ocis.net> wrote: > > > > Running glxgears at 1024x768x16 gives me a decent 35 fps, compared > > > > to the 1 fps I used to get. :) > > > > > > Uhm. Are you sure that you're running hardware-accelerated > > > OpenGL glxgears? > > > > > > I get 48 fps at 1400x1050x32 -- in software, without any > > > hardware 3D acceleration. (It's a 1.6GHz Centrino notebook > > > with shared i915 graphics. 2D acceleration is enabled, of > > > course.) > > > > glxgears is not a benchmark. > > That's right. I was not suggesting to use it as a real- > world benchmark, but rather as a rough indication whether > hardware acceleration is enabled at all or not. > > If someone gets 1 fps (!) out of glxgears, something > is _seriously_ wrong, even with software rendering. No, that's what I'm trying to say here. There's nothing seriously wrong with 1 fps software glxgears at full screen, or anything wrong at all. I get about 9 fps at 1600x1200x16 on my amd64. 1 fps is totally believable on a different graphics card and a slower cpu. -- Eric Anholt eta@lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDqHatHUdvYGzw6vcRAv/7AJ4weQyoVt0FkmNO3tlhqiqD23+ZzACcCnCR /RU9OasyQNHywKTetRV5W9w= =zB9z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1135113901.75547.43.camel>