nvidia opengl vs xfree opengl

ranmakun · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:25 am Post subject: nvidia opengl vs xfree opengl

I thought that nvidia opengl was way better that xfree opengl but when I run glxgears with xfree opengl I get a slight FPS increase. Is this normal?
BTW, I have a geforce4 MX440, AthlonXP1600+ and 768MB RAM and I get ~1400 fps, is this ok for this machine?
Thank you.

Francisco

Lilltiger · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 16 Mar 2003 Posts: 76

Im sad to say this but either you have some setup problems or you have been screwed by nvidia and thoes MX cards realy blows.

10903 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2180.600 FPS
11050 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2210.000 FPS
10985 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2197.000 FPS
10933 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2186.600 FPS
10929 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2185.800 FPS

Is my ratings using:
GeForce DDR
P3 866@900
1GB RAM
And the latest drivers from nvidia
2.4 XFS-Kernel.

When i tried with 2.5 Kernel i reatched 2600 FPS but X crashed ewry time i quitted it, X that is.

Also make sure u aren runing something that is chewing up your cpu.

barlad · l33t Joined: 22 Feb 2003 Posts: 673

if you want to improve your framerate you may try ck sources. You get the same framerate than in 2.5 and it's quite stable.

shm · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:30 pm Post subject:

Hmm.. I have an Athlon XP 2200+, gf4 4600, and latest NVIDIA drivers, and I get:

24088 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4817.600 FPS
25673 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5134.600 FPS
25742 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5148.400 FPS
25543 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5108.600 FPS

I'm running 2.4.20-ck

therobot · Apprentice Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 256 Location: Canada

athlon xp 1800+ gf4mx420 latest nvidia, Sometimes I'm getting around 9000 sometimes around 3000. either way, a vast improvement from the 900 or so I used to get

puddpunk · l33t Joined: 20 Jul 2002 Posts: 681 Location: New Zealand

¤£ý§êrgî¢¤ · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:01 pm Post subject: in reply too ranmakun

something does seem wrong with ya setup i find that i get much better framerates using nvidia opengl than with the xfree opengl :

Using xfree opengl :

1124 frames in 5.0 seconds = 224.800 FPS
1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.800 FPS
1235 frames in 5.0 seconds = 247.000 FPS
1222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 244.400 FPS
1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.800 FPS
1240 frames in 5.0 seconds = 248.000 FPS
1242 frames in 5.0 seconds = 248.400 FPS (lol xfree speeds suck)

Using nvidia opengl :

7971 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.200 FPS
7973 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.600 FPS
7970 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.000 FPS
7974 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.800 FPS
7972 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.400 FPS
7975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1595.000 FPS
7973 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1594.600 FPS

Running on a :

Chip :

model name : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+
cpu MHz : 1672.372
cache size : 256 KB
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow
bogomips : 3335.78

Memory :
256 mb ddr 333 corsair xms 3200

Bus :
Bus 0, device 1, function 0:
PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8367 [KT333 AGP] (rev 0).
Master Capable. No bursts. Min Gnt=12.

Gfx :
(II) NVIDIA(0): NVIDIA GPU detected as: GeForce4 MX 440
(--) NVIDIA(0): VideoRAM: 65536 kBytes

Running @

(II) NVIDIA(0): AGP 4X successfully initialized
(II) NVIDIA(0): Setting mode "1280x1024"

Flags :

CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-mcpu=athlon-xp -O3 -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="-O2 -mcpu=i686 -march=athlon-xp -pipe -ffast-math -mmmx -msse -m3dnow -mfpmath=sse,387"
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~x86'

zypher · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:51 pm Post subject:

¤£ý§êrgî¢¤: Are you running 32bpp?

I'm running 16bpp, AthlonC 1,33/GF2MX 32MB, 1280x1024, AGP(2x).

zypher@mothership zypher $ glxgears
7864 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1572.800 FPS
8291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.200 FPS
8291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.200 FPS
8293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.600 FPS
8289 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1657.800 FPS
8287 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1657.400 FPS
8287 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1657.400 FPS
8291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.200 FPS
8291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.200 FPS
8289 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1657.800 FPS
8291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1658.200 FPS
_________________
linux user 65882

Phreakazoid_ · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 1:59 pm Post subject:

hm

helmers · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 2:02 pm Post subject:

I get 5700-5800 on my GeForce4 4800SE. 8xAGP, FW&SB.

AthlonXP 1800, 1GB 400mhz RAM. Why does CPU make so much of a difference in this test?
_________________
C is for Cookies!

guero61 · l33t Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 811 Location: Behind you

Speeds depend on a lot of things -- kernel speed, what else is running, how fast your memory is, etc. Also, having any AA or anistropic filtering running kinda hurts things. Badly. Even moving your mouse during running can drop 400 off the speed. Processor speed matters because the data has to be fed to the card. I think it has something to do with the driver being hooked into the kernel instead of directly to the card. Or something. Yeah.

Phreakazoid -- are you using 16bpp? You've half my vram, but another 1000 FPS.

I run a GeForce Ti200/128 and get about 2700 FPS under KDE with the gentoo-sources kernel. When I turn off gkrellm, I all of a suden get ~200 FPS jump in speed. I'm sure if I ran in fluxbox or Xsession, I'd get even better speed.

puddpunk:
Part of your problem may be your card -- you should get marginally better performance, but the GeForce 2 is, sadly, getting out of date. Try using NVAGP if you can and upping the driving value in your BIOS to EA.

sms · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:44 pm Post subject:

Hmm, I don't find glxgears in portage... Did you download and install it from source or binary?

Thanks, sms

helmers · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:47 pm Post subject:

sms · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:53 pm Post subject:

helmers · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:16 pm Post subject:

I think you have a decent score, given that you have a GF3. GLXGears isn't really good for benchmarking, it is so easy too fool. But if you aren't happy with performance, you can always try to squeeze a little extra out of your card...

guero61 · l33t Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 811 Location: Behind you

Already have nvclock available, but if I overclock, it knocks my accelerated console out of commission. *sigh*

sms · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:13 am Post subject:

helmers · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:58 am Post subject:

Many times when stability is flaky it is due to to high AGP settings. If you try to go down a bit/disable SB&FW in the driver, you should notice stability improvement. Perhaps you also can make AGP less aggressive in your BIOS?
_________________
C is for Cookies!

sms · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:11 am Post subject:

sumer · n00b Joined: 19 Mar 2003 Posts: 5

sms: I had the same problems with stability until I disabled fast AGP writes in the BIOS settings.

vibidoo · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2002 Posts: 409

I'm running 16bpp , 1028x768 , Gforce2 MX400 64 Mo , P4 @ 2.4 Ghz

mario · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:26 pm Post subject: guero61

Are you talking about framebuffer console? If so, would accelerated mean you run rivafb? If so, how at all are you able to run it correctly along with nvidia drivers?

guero61 · l33t Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 811 Location: Behind you

Yes, the framebuffer console. Like everyone else, I had issues running both rivafb and the NVIDIA drivers, so I used the simple VESA driver for my console; I don't use it to watch movies or anything, so it works just fine!

azote · Guru Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 415

hey guys I just downgraded to the nvidia 1.0.4191-r2 (kernel and glx) and my frames when ~1000 more!!!

I have a gforce4 mobile on my laptop and now i get around ~3200 FPS and with the latest version I was getting ~2100 FPS

I did try all the nvida version and the 1.0.4191-r2 was the one that gave me best results...
_________________
contact me -> azote@mail.i2p

What do you want to emerge today?

if you think that a person is normal, it is because you do not know them well

puddpunk · l33t Joined: 20 Jul 2002 Posts: 681 Location: New Zealand