Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Nix
2005-12-16T07:38:12Z

[My Radeon 9250-AGP is fine, Helge's 9250-PCI is dog slow]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Nix wrote:
>
>>OK, I see 25-40fps with that, with DRI. If I turn on stencil buffering
>>it gets unbearable, but that's just asking too much of the card I think
>>
> At what resolution? 25fps is nice enough - as good as movies.
> I no longer remember exactly, but I had to use 640x480 to get
> anything close to playable - lucky to get 10 or so fps.

1280x1024.

I think we can fairly say that there's a system config difference here
of some kind. :)

> I have been in touch with DRI developers before - this card isn't
> supposed to be "great", but it _is_ supposed to beat the
> matrox G550 which it isn't even close to. The matrox has its
> own problems - it sometimes looses the font in this game, and
> the fps reporting is wrong. But the game is smooth at 1280x1024 . . .

... as with my 9250.

>>Ah, this is a pure-PCI 9250, is it? (I wasn't aware you could get hold
>>of those anymore... I think X supports them, but textured stuff is
>>necessarily going to be slower.)
>>
> Yes - it is a pure pci thing, because the AGP slot is taken by the matrox.
> As for textured stuff being slower, I was under the impression that tuxracer
> use something like a total of 3 different textures, that surely should fit
> in the 64MB of onboard memory? Now ppracer have more textures, but
> old tuxracer levels don't actually use them.

True enough.

I'll admit I'm not sure why you're seeing such a speed difference if
hardware rendering is on; an order of magnitude seems a bit much just
for PCI versus AGP. Perhaps Dave knows?

--
`I must caution that dipping fingers into molten lead
presents several serious dangers.' --- Jearl Walker