On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 10:43 +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Eric Anholt <eta_at_lclark.edu> wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > Freddie Cash <fcash_at_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_at_lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt_at_FreeBSD.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:49 UTC