Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:25:00 +0600 (NOVT) From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@inet.ssc.nsu.ru> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, thierry@herbelot.com, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Subject: Re: Porting NVidia linux kernel modules to FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10103120946590.24090-100000@inet.ssc.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010312140014.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 12-Mar-01 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > Meaning, 3.3.6 + utah_glx outperforms by a factor of two 4.0.2 + DRI?! > > > > > > > Or, even better, 4.0.2 + "suppose-we-managed-to-port-it nvidia kernel > > module" + nvidia binary 'nvidia' replacement module for XFree-4's 'nv' > > driver? I mean, will 336/utah be better?? > > No, nvidia's binary driver would be (a lot) faster. > > The Utah-GLX one doesn't direct render which slows it down a lot. (All the GL > commands go through the X pipe) That's what I thought, but Jordan's email really made me doubt that my vision of things is correct. Particulary, I don't quite understand this one: Statement #1: Utah-GLX doesn't direct render Statement #2: From man nv(4) of XFree-4.0.2- "The driver is fully accelerated, and provides support..." Thus far, it seems that based on these two statements, 336/utah (taking into account that 1) it is somewhat older technology; 2) XFree86-4.0.2 driver is in fact native nvidia's software render driver (providing non-direct rendering 3D acceleration of OpenGL) released as OpenSource (http://www.nvidia.com/Products/OpenLinuxDwn.nsf/XFree86335)) should be at its best as fast as X4 'nv' driver (included in X4 core distribution), and probably even slower. That's what my common sense says :-) So, considering all the above, I don't quite understand "at least 2X the frame rate using the same OpenGL app", speaking Jordan's words. I'm probably missing something here, and I'm very eager to find my way out :-) Actually, there's one more question I have about XFree-4. IIUC, core GL libs, such as libGL.so, libOSMesa.so, etc are included in XFree 4.0.2 core distribution. So how come that lots of applications still have Mesa-3.2 in their dependencies? 10x. -- WBR To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.10103120946590.24090-100000>