[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: FC5, progression or regression?
- From: "Jonathan Berry" <berryja gmail com>
- To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: FC5, progression or regression?
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 03:09:31 -0600
On 2/28/06, David Timms <dtimms bigpond net au> wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Mike A. Harris (mharris mharris ca) said:
> > > > >a 3 GHz P4 processor for heaven's sake. It should run FC5 like the wind.
> > > >
> > > > That's why it is a test release, to find bugs. Don't use test releases
> > > > if you expect flawless OS operation and perfect performance.
> > >
> > > However, if it's *significantly* less performance, it could certainly
> > > signify something that's wrong.
> >
> > Current kernels still have slab debugging on (Because we still have
> > bugs that this is tripping up that need whacking). The increased
> > overhead of this sucks up memory bandwidth, and I wouldn't be
> > surprised if shared-memory video chipsets feel some pain.
> With glxgears, I see the gears update about 15 times in 10 seconds, and
> the results are (AMD athlon 2600+, 512ram, nvidia fx5600)# glxgears
> 888 frames in 5.4 seconds = 165.811 FPS
> 798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.416 FPS
> 912 frames in 5.7 seconds = 161.284 FPS
> 798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.274 FPS
> 798 frames in 5.1 seconds = 155.004 FPS
> It's hard to tell if this is just a stobing effect ;-)
>
> I think it was at least an order of magnitude higher in FC4 - from
> memory approximately 5000 f/s (but perhaps only with the nvidia
> (non-open) driver).
Are you able to run glxgears with the nv (open-source) driver? It
does not work for me (x86_64 PCI-e 6600 GT):
$ glxgears
X Error of failed request: GLXBadContext
Major opcode of failed request: 143 (GLX)
Minor opcode of failed request: 5 (X_GLXMakeCurrent)
Serial number of failed request: 22
Current serial number in output stream: 22
Same as Partha noted with an ATi card. Interesting that both of our
systems are 64-bit. I also cannot get my GLUT programs to work. They
give the same error, with the minor difference that the above 22s are
both 29 with the GLUT programs.
Jonathan
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]